1. The defendant's compulsory execution based on the notarial deed No. 49 of 2016 against the plaintiff by the notary public C Office against the plaintiff is denied.

2...

In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including the provisional number), the plaintiff prepared a notarial deed (No. 49, 2016, hereinafter "notarial deed of this case") with the defendant to pay KRW 4,400,000 to the defendant in order to be liable for part of the obligation to return lease deposit to the defendant with D's children, and the defendant made a notarial deed (No. 49, 2016, hereinafter "notarial deed of this case") with the title of execution of the notarial deed of this case as the title of execution of the notarial deed of this case. The defendant applied for a compulsory auction of real estate to the Jeonju District Court on February 6, 2017 and received the order to commence a compulsory auction on February 15, 2017, the plaintiff thereafter deposited 4,400,000 won as the principal deposit on February 15, 2017 with the Seoul Central District Court Decision No. 35360, Jul. 17, 2017. 2017.

Therefore, the Plaintiff fully repaid to the Defendant the obligation based on the instant authentic deed and the execution cost.

As such, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case should not be permitted.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.