1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, in 201, drawn up a Cjoint Law Office.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant first come close to the Plaintiff around August 2009, and around 2011, they came to be a school relationship with each other. From around 2012, the de facto marriage relationship was maintained while living together and maintaining a de facto marital relationship.

B. On December 12, 201, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) to the Defendant, stating that “The amount of face value KRW 30 million is KRW, the addressee, the Defendant, and the date of issuance on November 20, 2010, and December 30, 2012,” and that a notary public would immediately recognize compulsory execution against the said promissory note (hereinafter “instant authentic deed”) as of December 12, 2011, the Plaintiff drafted a notarized deed to the effect that the said promissory note was issued by a notary public as of December 12, 2011.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. On September 5, 2011, the gist of the assertion of false declaration of conspiracy 1) was that the Plaintiff filed a claim for divorce against E, who was the spouse (Scheon District Court 2011ddan2320) on September 5, 201 due to violence and misconduct, and E filed a counterclaim on January 25, 2012, and claimed a solatium amounting to KRW 30 million and KRW 60 million as division of property. During the divorce lawsuit, the Plaintiff mentioned this circumstance to the Defendant and prepared the instant notarial deed by preparing the notarial deed in the form of a non-financial transaction with the Defendant, even in preparation for the case where E requests division of property, although the Plaintiff did not have any monetary transaction with the Defendant, and thus, it is difficult to determine that the preparation of the instant fair statement constitutes a false declaration of agreement, and thus, compulsory execution based thereon should not be denied. According to the evidence No. 7-1 and No. 2, the Plaintiff’s testimony during the divorce proceeding is recognized in light of the following facts.