No. 518 of the 2015 deed prepared by D, May 15, 2015, by the defendant's notary public belonging to the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office against the plaintiff.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence (including various numbers), the plaintiff borrowed KRW 20 million from the defendant on May 15, 2015 without fixing interest and the time for repayment. The plaintiff entrusted the defendant with the preparation of a promissory note No. 1 as to this issue to a notary public as stated in the Disposition No. 1, and the above notary public entrusted the plaintiff, the payee with the defendant, the defendant, the face value of 20,000,000, the issue date of which is May 15, 2015, the date of payment was made on May 15, 2015, the No. 1 of the Disposition No. 1 of the Promissory Notes No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "No. notarial deed of this case"), and the fact that the plaintiff fully repaid 20,000 won to the defendant on December 14, 205 through November 22, 2017.

According to the above facts, since the execution bond of the notarial deed of this case has been fully repaid and extinguished, compulsory execution against the plaintiff of this case shall not be permitted.

In regard to this, the Defendant alleged that the amount of the obligation to be paid to the Defendant on the basis of the instant notarial deed remains 5,486,500 won, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not return the equipment that the Plaintiff had received in the course of trading alcoholic beverages with the Defendant, 3,435,00 won, 2,05 won, 2,051,50 won, to be paid to the Defendant on the grounds of the Plaintiff’s failure to return the equipment that the Plaintiff had received in the course of trading alcoholic beverages with the Defendant, was preferentially appropriated for the repayment of the amount of the unpaid goods. Thus, the Defendant asserted that the amount of obligation to be paid to the

[Evidence] The parties present at the date for pleading or the date for preparatory pleading and present it in reality, and the same applies to a case deemed to have been stated by the complaint attached with documentary evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da15775, Nov. 8, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 91Da15775, Dec. 17, 2019; Supreme Court Decision 201Da15775, Nov. 8, 201