1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that was established on March 23, 2016 and is constructing the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-building (hereinafter “E”).

B. On December 9, 2016, the Plaintiff prepared and delivered to the Defendant a certificate of borrowing KRW 5698 million (hereinafter “certificate of borrowing”). On December 12, 2016, the Plaintiff prepared and issued a notarized deed (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) No. 1015 of the same amount written to the Defendant as the Defendant on December 12, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5 evidence, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The loan certificate and notarial deed of this case prepared by the plaintiff by the plaintiff are prepared at the defendant's request. This is calculated on the basis of the interest rate of 120% in violation of the Interest Limitation Act (10% per month).

From October 27, 2016 to September 29, 2017, the Plaintiff borrowed money from the Defendant and repaid the money. However, even when applying the interest rate of 25% per annum, which is the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act on the borrowed money, the Plaintiff was paid in excess of KRW 43,785,680.

Therefore, inasmuch as the loan certificate of this case and the debt based on the Notarial Deed are fully repaid, compulsory execution should be dismissed.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, it is recognized that the Plaintiff prepared and delivered a loan certificate and a notarial deed stating that the Plaintiff is liable for a debt of KRW 569,80,000 to the Defendant. However, the evidence Nos. 3 through 8 and 13 (including the serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) are included.

In full view of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 and 4 through 12 and the purport of the entire argument in the witness F’s testimony, the Plaintiff cannot be readily concluded that there was such transaction solely on the basis that the Plaintiff prepared and delivered a large number of receipts and contracts to the Defendant, and that there was a large amount of money transaction equivalent thereto was not verified, since there were many cases where the loan certificate was prepared.