1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff was a law firm, 30 October 30, 2006 No. 2242 dated October 30, 2006.

1. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion that the plaintiff A borrowed KRW 5,00,000 from the defendant, and the plaintiff B jointly and severally guaranteed the defendant's above loan obligation.

The plaintiffs, on December 30, 2008, prepared a notarial deed containing a provision that recognizes compulsory execution if they fail to repay the above loan debt to the defendant by December 30, 2008.

On July 30, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 2,346,00 from the auction procedure for corporeal movables. ② On July 10, 2012 and on July 13, 2012, the Defendant did not pay for the price equivalent to KRW 2,950,00,00 in the market price at a pharmaceutical company operated by the Plaintiff A twice on July 10, 2012.

Plaintiff

A, in lieu of the repayment of the remainder of the borrowed debt after the auction of corporeal movables, as the defendant took the foregoing as a substitute and paid in kind, the debt indicated in the above notarial deed was all extinguished.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the above notarial deed should not be permitted.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 30, 2006, Plaintiff A borrowed KRW 7,000,000 from the Defendant, the due date for payment was December 30, 2008, and the interest rate was 30% per annum.

(hereinafter the above 7,00,000 won is “the instant loan” or “the instant loan”). Plaintiff B, a spouse of Plaintiff A, guaranteed the Defendant’s debt on the same day.

On the same day, the Plaintiffs prepared a notarial deed as stated in Paragraph 1 of the Disposition (hereinafter referred to as the “notarial deed of this case”) containing the phrase that compulsory execution shall be accepted if they cannot repay the borrowed money to the Defendant by the above due date.

(1) The Plaintiff asserted that the loan amount of this case was KRW 5,00,000,000, but in full view of the entries and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to regard the loan amount of this case as KRW 7,000,000,000.

B. The Defendant failed to receive the instant loan from the Plaintiffs even after the maturity date, and thus, the Daegu District Court 2012No. 3157 held the title of execution of the instant No. 3157.