1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff in 2012 signed a law firm heading.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 13, 2012, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 40,000,000 from the Defendant, and prepared promissory notes with the face value of KRW 40,000,000 on the same day and the due date of October 13, 2012 for this purpose, and at the same time a notary public prepared and delivered to the Defendant a notarized deed under the No. 386 of the Law Firm Number 30,00,000.

B. On July 16, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction of real estate on the instant notarial deed with respect to the instant notarial deed of KRW 902 square meters in G, H large 668 square meters, and the instant 2-story reinforced concrete building on the ground, and rendered a decision to commence compulsory auction on the 17th of the same month.

(The Jeju District Court I). (c)

On September 17, 2015, the Defendant repaid all of the above promissory note claims, and withdrawn the above application for auction.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 3, obvious facts to this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above-mentioned facts of determination on the cause of the claim, since the above-mentioned notarial deed execution claims are all extinguished, compulsory execution shall be dismissed.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendant is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the judgment of the court of first instance shall be accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the compulsory execution based on the notarial deed shall be dismissed.