1. Certificates No. 137, 201, drawn up by the defendant's notary public against the plaintiff on March 15, 201 by the law firm branch.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the husband of C who re-born with C, and the defendant was a person who associates with D, who is a father of C's father.

B. On March 15, 2011, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff and the Defendant lent KRW 25 million to the Plaintiff on March 15, 2011, and the Plaintiff borrowed. The Plaintiff shall pay the Plaintiff by April 30, 2013. C guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation, and agreed jointly with the Plaintiff to jointly perform the said obligation. If the Plaintiff and C fail to perform the said obligation, a notary public who agreed that there was no objection even if he was immediately subject to compulsory execution.” The said deed of monetary loan contract No. 136 on March 15, 2011 (hereinafter “first notarial deed”) and “the Defendant borrowed KRW 60 million to the Plaintiff on March 15, 2011, and the Plaintiff agreed that the said deed of loan for consumption had not been performed as a notary public for the said case’s obligation to the Plaintiff by April 30, 2015, the Plaintiff and C were jointly and severally agreed that the said deed of loan for consumption was not performed.

(C) The Defendant transferred KRW 20 million to C’s deposit account on March 28, 201. D. The Defendant was forced to enforce the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of the lease deposit and received a repayment of KRW 25 million in accordance with the first authentic deed around December 9, 2014. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Eul’s 2, 3, 6, 7 evidence (including serial numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The parties' arguments and the judgment on them

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion was made by the Defendant to lend KRW 60 million to the Plaintiff from the preparation of the said notarial deed to March 30, 2011, and the Defendant actually paid the said money.