1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff was a law firm, No. 264, May 15, 2014.

1. The Plaintiff: (a) borrowed KRW 15,00,00 from the Defendant on May 15, 2014 to the end of March 15, 2015; (b) prepared a notarial deed (No. 264 of May 15, 2014, a deed stating that the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 1,50,000 each month from June 15, 2014 to March 15, 2015; (c) the Plaintiff paid the loan to the Plaintiff from June 17, 2014 to March 16, 2015; and (d) the Defendant received a collection order under the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice No. 201670, Jun. 21, 2016 to the effect that there is no dispute between the parties concerned or that the entire statement in Gap’s evidence may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the purport of each of subparagraphs 1 through 5.

According to the above facts of recognition, since the above debt under the above notarial deed has already been repaid in full, compulsory execution based on the above notarial deed should not be permitted.

The plaintiff's assertion is justified.

2. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.