1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On June 28, 2013, D, a notary public belonging to the Cheongju District Court, drafted a notarial deed of money consumption loan No. 302 of the 2013 Certificate No. 302 of the 2013 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”), with the commission of the Plaintiff’s agent who is the debtor and the Defendant who is the creditor, stating that “20,000,000 won of loans, 20% of interest per month (payment on September 28, 2018), and by September 28, 2018.”

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 3 and the purport of the whole argument

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the contract price was paid by E.

around 2013, the Plaintiff, Defendant, and E agreed to take over the Plaintiff’s obligations against the Defendant based on the instant notarial deed as a discharge.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case against the defendant should not be allowed.

3. The written evidence No. 2 of the judgment alone is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff, defendant, and E agreed to accept the plaintiff's obligation to the defendant on the basis of the notarial deed of this case with immunity, or that the defendant consented to, or consented to, the assumption of obligation with the above immunity, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

4. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.