1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was dispatched to Japan as a teacher during the period from August 30, 2012 to August 30, 2015, as a pastor belonging to the Korean Egymnasium, and the Defendant is a Korean national who operates a health food seller in Japan.

B. On November 22, 2012, the Plaintiff received KRW 100 million from the Defendant, issued, on November 22, 2013, a promissory note amounting to KRW 100 million at the face value of the Defendant as the addressee. On the same day, the Plaintiff prepared and issued the instant authentic deed to the effect that compulsory execution is recognized if the payment of a promissory note pursuant to the said promissory note is delayed.

C. On December 11, 2013, upon the Defendant’s application for a compulsory auction based on the instant notarial deed, the Seoul Southern District Court D rendered a decision to commence compulsory auction as to the Seoul Yangcheon-gu E701 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, 2, 3, 5, 6, each entry in Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff deposited KRW 50 million with the Defendant as the principal deposit, and determined the value of KRW 939 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Plaintiff as KRW 50 million between the Defendant and the Defendant, thereby completing the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land in the name of the Defendant’s female life designated by the Defendant. Around January 12, 2013, the Defendant acquired a claim for damages equivalent to KRW 25 million from the market price owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, thereby having acquired a claim for damages equivalent to the said value against the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff under the instant notarial deed was fully repaid.

B. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 4 of the first claim for reimbursement deposit and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff made June 2014 in order for the plaintiff to pay his/her obligations under the notarial deed of this case.