1. Certificates No. 324, 2014, drawn up by the Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff on June 25, 2014 by the law firm branch.

1.The following facts shall be free to dispute between the parties:

On June 25, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) to the Defendant as of June 25, 2015, the amount of KRW 130,000,000, and the due date, as of June 25, 2015 (hereinafter “instant promissory note”). In the event a notary public delays the payment of the amount of a promissory note under No. 324 from a law firm branch, the Plaintiff drafted a notarial deed (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) to the effect that there is no objection even if he/she is immediately subject to compulsory execution.

B. Based on the instant notarial deed on October 2, 2015, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction against the Plaintiff-owned apartment Nos. 107 in Jung-gu Seoul Central District Court C, Jung-gu, Seoul, and the said court rendered a decision to commence compulsory auction on October 5, 2015.

C. On October 15, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 3,125,50 with the Seoul Central District Court No. 3414 (132,50,000) and KRW 160 (3,125,500) with the same court on January 11, 2016, and the Defendant received each of the said deposits without any objection.

2. According to the above facts of recognition, since the Plaintiff’s obligations to the Defendant due to the issuance of the Promissory Notes have ceased to exist in full by payment, it shall be deemed that the executory power of the notarial deed of this case has expired.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.