1. Certificate No. 77, 2012 drawn up by the Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff on January 27, 2012 by the same law firm.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s primary assertion is that a notary public borrowed KRW 27,00,000 as stated in the No. 77 of the Money Loan Agreement (hereinafter “instant No. notarial deed”) signed by the same law firm on January 27, 2012 from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant based on the instant notarial deed constitutes an gambling obligation and thus, constitutes a juristic act contrary to social order as stipulated in Article 103 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, since the notarial deed of this case is also null and void, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case shall not be permitted.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff discontinued gambling to the Defendant around 201, and that the construction cost would be paid to the Defendant on a five-month basis while lending money to the Defendant. The Defendant lent KRW 27,00,000 to the Plaintiff in cash and received the notarial deed of this case.

Therefore, since the notarial deed of this case is irrelevant to gambling, the plaintiff's claim of this case must be dismissed.

2. In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the Defendant lent KRW 27,00,00 to the Plaintiff on January 27, 2012 at interest rate of 30%, even if the Defendant lent the said money to the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant lent the said money to the Plaintiff as money for gambling.

Therefore, even if the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant based on the Notarial Deed does not exist or exists, it shall be deemed null and void as it constitutes a juristic act contrary to the social order stipulated in Article 103 of the Civil Act as an gambling obligation. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case shall be dismissed.

① Even based on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant.