1. The defendant's notary public belonging to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office is a successor to the new law office.

1. The following facts of recognition are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to each entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2:

Plaintiff

The plaintiff was named as the current name in D.

B. On July 30, 2010, the Defendant: (a) signed a notarial deed of a money loan agreement (No. 15,000,000 won) to the Plaintiff on July 30, 2010, a notary public, who is a successor to the new law office, as a notary public C’s office, and the Defendant lent KRW 704,00,000 to the Plaintiff on July 30, 2010; and (b) from August 30, 2010 to November 2015, the Plaintiff made a notarial deed of a money loan agreement (No. 1,00, hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

B. After that, on September 11, 2012, the Defendant signed and issued a written confirmation (Evidence A 2; hereinafter “instant written confirmation”) to the Plaintiff that “I confirm that all the obligations (including official certificates) related to Category A have been repaid.”

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed is no longer permissible since the Defendant exempted the remainder of the debt by preparing and delivering the instant confirmation document on September 11, 2012 after receiving part of the amount agreed upon by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that the defendant signed the letter of confirmation of this case only with the purport that the plaintiff would pay the remainder of the loan immediately on the face of the plaintiff's signature, which does not exempt the plaintiff from the remainder of the loan, and the plaintiff has not yet paid the remainder of the loan.

3. The existence and content of the declaration of intention in accordance with the contents in the document should be recognized unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that the contents in the document can be denied if the declaration of intention is accepted.

Supreme Court Decision 200