1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3.Paragraph 1 of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 18, 2015, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 1,500,000 from the Defendant at interest rate of 25% per annum and on June 18, 2015.

B. On May 18, 2015, upon the commission of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, an attorney-at-law in charge of notarial services has drawn up a notarial deed of debt repayment contract (No. 382, 2015; hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the content that “if the Plaintiff fails to pay the above loan, he/she shall recognize that there is no objection even if he/she is immediately subject to compulsory execution.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that since the Plaintiff paid the principal and interest to the Defendant over several occasions until October 6, 2015, including the payment of the advance payment of KRW 150,000 on May 18, 2015, the enforcement force of the instant notarial deed should be excluded.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that since the plaintiff was not paid the principal and interest at all, compulsory execution can be conducted based on the notarial deed of this case.

B. As to whether the Plaintiff fully repaid the principal and interest of the instant notarial deed to the Defendant, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Plaintiff in the form of fraud, taking into account the following factors: (a) the Plaintiff paid 150,000 won to the Defendant on May 18, 2015, including the payment of KRW 150,000 to KRW 150,000,000, each month until October 6, 2015; and (b) the purport thereof was stated in the calendar; (c) the Defendant borrowed the said KRW 1,50,000 with the intent and ability of the Plaintiff; and (d) the Seo-gu District Public Prosecutor’s Office borrowed the money from the Defendant on September 19, 2016, taking into account the details of the monthly calendar, the details of the Plaintiff’s entry into financial institutions, the currency details of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the details of the statement made by the witness.