1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant have been engaged in money transactions several times from February 27, 2006 to April 5, 2012.

B. On February 15, 2012, the Plaintiff prepared a notarized deed of debt repayment contract No. 139 of the 2012 Office 2012 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the Defendant that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant KRW 650,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s debt incurred on June 10, 201.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 26 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The ground for the plaintiff's claim and the defendant's rebuttal

A. The Plaintiff, which caused the Plaintiff’s claim, borrowed KRW 262.5 million from the Defendant, and repaid KRW 4220 million as principal, interest, and fees.

Although the Plaintiff prepared the instant notarial deed with the Defendant on February 15, 2012, the said notarial deed constitutes a false notarial deed as it constitutes a false notarial deed, even though it did not bear an obligation of KRW 650,000,000,000, in collusion with the Defendant.

Therefore, in fact, the amount repaid by the Plaintiff at the rate of 30% per annum, which is a limitation under the Act on the Restriction of Principal and Interest that the Plaintiff borrowed from the Defendant, and the Defendant would have received excessive reimbursement of KRW 98,002,940,00,000, which was apportioned by the Defendant in favor of the Plaintiff in a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act that the Plaintiff was the debtor, and the Defendant would have received excessive reimbursement of KRW 98,02,940,00 corresponding to the above excessive reimbursement amount. Therefore, the Defendant

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion on return of unjust enrichment is without merit, since the instant notarial deed was prepared on February 15, 2012 to settle the money transaction among the Defendant’s members and the Defendant several times, and the said notarial deed is valid. The Plaintiff’s repayment amount is insufficient to completely extinguish the amount of KRW 650 million, which is the obligation on the notarial deed.

3...