1. The judgment of the first instance on the part of the objection raised shall be revoked;

2. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff).

1. Basic facts

A. On May 13, 2004, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as a legal couple who completed the marriage report on May 13, 2004, have two children under the chain. The agreement was married on May 6, 2008.

B. On May 6, 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendant brought up children on the part of May 6, 2008, and the Plaintiff paid 50,000 won per month from May 1, 2010 to the Defendant for the child support of their children (per annum 6% increase per annum), and if the Plaintiff delayed the payment of the child support, the Plaintiff agreed to pay in addition to 7% interest per annum (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

C. On May 6, 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a notarial deed No. 225 of 2008 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) issued by a notary public with the following executory power on May 6, 2008, as of the date of entering into the instant agreement.

- The plaintiff approves that the defendant has the obligation of KRW 120 million.

- The plaintiff shall pay 50,000 won per month from May 1, 2010 to April 1, 2030.

- If the Plaintiff delays the repayment of the above amount, the damages for delay calculated by adding 7% per annum to the delayed amount shall be paid.

- In the event of a loss of benefit due to a bankruptcy, commencement of composition or company reorganization procedure, a transaction suspension, a delay in the payment of interest and installment from a bank, a third party, such as compulsory execution, provisional attachment, provisional disposition, application for auction, tax disposition, default, breach of contract, etc., the plaintiff shall pay the remaining amount to the defendant in lump

(hereinafter referred to as “the benefit of time”) d.

From October 1, 2010 to October 4, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 21,90,000 per month to the Defendant as child support.

E. From February 2, 2015, around August 2016, and around September 2016, the Defendant deemed that the benefit of time from the obligation under the instant authentic deed was lost, and thus, the seizure and collection order and the Plaintiff’s real estate owned by the Plaintiff regarding the bank account in the name of the Plaintiff.