1. The part concerning the claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.

2. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim objection.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 22, 2014, Nonparty D prepared and executed a notarial deed under the monetary loan agreement No. 82 of 2014 (hereinafter “notarial deed of 2014”) with the Defendant, “principal 100 million won, maturity of payment, January 22, 2015, interest rate of 30%” to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation under the said notarial deed.

B. On August 17, 2015, the Plaintiff prepared and issued a notarized deed of monetary loan agreement No. 1272, No. 1272, 2015, which was signed by a notary public, stating that “10 million won of the principal, due date for payment, December 31, 2016, and 25% of the interest rate,” with the Plaintiff as the Defendant’s obligor, to the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4

2. Assertion and determination

A. On January 22, 2014, when the Plaintiff had been engaged in money transactions with D, the Defendant settled accounts and set the amount as KRW 100 million, and then prepared the “notarial deed in 2014” with the Plaintiff as the guarantor.

D repaid to the Defendant KRW 559,195,00 from January 22, 2014 to January 22, 2015, which is the due date for repayment, to the Defendant, and even if D additionally borrowed from the Defendant during the same period excluded KRW 361,250,00,00, the principal and interest set forth in the Notarial Deed of 2014 were fully repaid.

On August 17, 2015, the Defendant: (a) sought a notarial deed again from D on the ground that the claim remains; (b) however, D did not possess an identification card, and (c) was drafted “notarial deed in 2015” with the Plaintiff as the obligor.

D, however, from August 17, 2015 to July 22, 2016, paid 423,680,000 won to the Defendant for all obligations.

Therefore, inasmuch as the obligation based on each of the instant notarial deeds was fully repaid, the Plaintiff is seeking to deny compulsory execution based on “notarial deeds in 2014” and to confirm the existence of the obligation based on “notarial deeds in 2014” and “notarial deeds in 2015.”

B. Of the instant lawsuit 1, there is an apprehension or risk in existing in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status.