1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff No. 412, 201, drafted on February 24, 2011, No. 412.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. A. A. On February 24, 2011, the Defendant: (a) lent KRW 100 million to Nonparty C on February 28, 201; (b) the interest rate was set at 18% per annum; and (c) the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the obligations of the Plaintiff and C around February 24, 2011, the Plaintiff and C jointly and severally guaranteed the said obligations of the Plaintiff. (d) Around February 24, 2011, a notary public drafted a notarial deed stating the Defendant’s expression of intent to recognize compulsory execution in the event of nonperformance of the said loan and joint and several liability obligations (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

3) Meanwhile, around June 21, 2012, the Plaintiff repaid the Defendant the above loan amount of KRW 100 million. [In the absence of dispute between the parties to the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

B. According to the above facts of recognition, since the Plaintiff’s debt was already extinguished upon repayment of KRW 100 million to the Defendant on June 21, 2012, compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed should be dismissed, barring any special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The gist of the defendant's argument is that the defendant lent KRW 100 million to C who has no ordinary friendship upon the plaintiff's recommendation, and the plaintiff did not additionally prepare a notarial deed and a loan certificate in accordance with the plaintiff's agreement on the utilization of the notarial deed of this case as above, and one week has not passed since the plaintiff remitted KRW 100 million to C's account, and if the plaintiff again transfers KRW 100 million to C's account, he/she would pay interest at 18% per annum which was already paid to C, and in the process, he/she remitted KRW 100 million to C around July 2, 2012. The amount of the defendant's claim against the plaintiff is the same, the plaintiff's claim amount is the same, the plaintiff's claim amount is not due on February 24, 2011, and so it is possible for the defendant to use the notarial deed of this case. The defendant did not lend additional money to the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself/herself, and the plaintiff and the defendant prepared on February 24, 201.