1. The Defendant’s notary public C with the Plaintiff on July 13, 2015, signed a monetary loan agreement No. 697, No. 2015.

1. On July 13, 2015, at the Defendant and notary public C office, the Plaintiff drafted a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) stating that “the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 150 million from the Defendant as of July 13, 2015, which was determined and borrowed as of July 30, 2016 from the Defendant as the due date for repayment” under Article 697 of the deed 2015.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the notarial deed of this case was made for the purpose of collecting the money that the defendant lent to the plaintiff for the purpose of gambling, and therefore, the compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case shall not be permitted.

In full view of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 24 (including spot numbers, if any) and some of witness D testimony, the fact that the plaintiff borrowed money from the defendant for the purpose of gambling money, while gambling with the defendant and D, and that the defendant who requested the preparation of a notarial deed for the purpose of collecting it is sufficiently recognized.

Ultimately, money and valuables that the Plaintiff borrowed from the Defendant as money for illegal consideration under Article 746 of the Civil Act is null and void as an act contrary to the public order and good morals, and even if the Plaintiff, a debtor, prepared and executed the notarial deed in this case to collect the money, the obligee cannot conduct compulsory execution based on this. Thus, it is reasonable to deny compulsory execution against the Plaintiff by the Defendant based on the notarial deed in this case.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.