1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff shall have a law firm C on November 3, 2017 (No. 438) executory power.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 17, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant to operate a restaurant using the Defendant’s trade name “D” with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff agreed to bear the expenses for the restaurant license.

B. After that, as a dispute arises in relation to the cafeteria cost, the Plaintiff’s agent E prepared, on November 3, 2017, by a notary public, at No. 438 of C Deed 2017, a notarial deed of debt repayment contract (quasi-loan for Consumption) with the following content (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

1. On November 3, 2017, the Plaintiff approved that the balance of the agreed amount is KRW 102,400,000 as of November 3, 2017 with respect to the Defendant, and offered to make reimbursement pursuant to the following provisions, and the obligee accepted it.

Article 2 (Method of Time for Payment) Payment shall be made in a lump sum by December 9, 2017.

Article 3 (Interest) Interest shall be calculated at 0% per annum.

Article 5 (Compensation for Delay) When the debtor delays the repayment of the above amount, damages for delay shall be paid to the creditor at the rate of 3% per annum to the delayed amount.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff paid 102,634,970 won to the Defendant (i.e., KRW 107,634,970 remitted to the Defendant - KRW 5 million returned from the Defendant) and repaid all the claims indicated in the notarial deed of this case.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case should be denied.

B. The Defendant returned at the Plaintiff’s request to the Plaintiff on February 9, 2018, KRW 2.5 million to the Plaintiff, and thus, the amount of KRW 2.5 million should be excluded from the amount of debt repayment for the instant notarial deed.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 3 and 10 as well as the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 107,634,970 to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff is a person who received a return from the Defendant out of the above amount.