1. It is based on the original copy of a notarial deed with executory power No. 920, 2013 against the defendant's plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 28, 2013, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with the Defendant as the addressee, with a face value of KRW 17,00,000,000, which is payable at sight (hereinafter “instant promissory note”). On October 28, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entrusted the preparation of a notarial deed with the intent to recognize compulsory execution against the said promissory note to a law firm number, and a notary public drafted a notarial deed of promissory note (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) with a law firm number No. 920, 2013.

B. On November 18, 2013 on the basis of the instant notarial deed, the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction on a single-story house of 82.8 square meters for a compulsory auction with respect to C large 120 square meters and 120 square meters and sowing-si, D, and C’s light-to-land No. 1 and C’s light-to-land land No. 1, 82.8 square meters (Seoul District Court Goyang support E), and rendered a decision to commence the compulsory auction on November 29, 20

C. On August 13, 2014, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 17,965,760, total amount of KRW 17,00,000 for the Promissory Notes and KRW 965,760 for the auction expenses of this case as the gold 2794, gold 2014.

[Grounds for recognition] The written evidence Nos. 1-6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since it is determined that the obligation of the Promissory Notes was extinguished by the deposit for repayment of the plaintiff, compulsory execution based on the original copy of the notarial deed against the plaintiff shall be rejected.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition.