1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is the name of law firm.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 may be admitted by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings:

On July 25, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) a notary public entrusted the preparation of a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement with the purport that “the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 15,00,000 from the Defendant on April 9, 2013 for the interest rate of KRW 24% per annum and the due date until December 20, 2013; and (b) if the Plaintiff fails to perform the monetary obligation, the Plaintiff shall immediately be subject to compulsory execution; (c) a notary public entrusted the said law firm with the preparation of a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement with the purport that “the said law firm shall not raise any objection,” and (d) a notary public was issued the authentic copy of the said deed by the said law firm on the same day.”

B. After that, the Plaintiff repaid to the Defendant KRW 5,00,000 of the principal amount out of KRW 15,000,000 under the Notarial Deed of this case.

C. Based on the original copy of the instant authentic deed, the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction with the Suwon District Court for the amount claimed as KRW 11,722,739 on the real estate owned by the Plaintiff, and received a decision to commence the auction on December 9, 2015 from the said court.

On the other hand, the plaintiff filed an application for the suspension of compulsory execution with the Suwon District Court's Ansan Branch 2015Kadan167, and the above court authorized the suspension of compulsory execution on January 11, 2016.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. On December 2012, the Defendant offered that C shall borrow KRW 5,00,000 on the condition that C shall provide a security for the above loan obligation, as C did not provide a security for the above loan obligation, and accordingly, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 5,000,000 from the Defendant while borrowing KRW 5,00,000 from the Defendant. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 10,000,000 as C’s loan and KRW 5,000 as 5,000 from the Plaintiff.