1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 2010, the Plaintiff purchased a vehicle through a public auction and then borrowed money from the Defendant for the business of selling it to a used vehicle for sale.

B. On November 22, 2010, the Defendant lent interest of KRW 17 million to the Plaintiff at 24% per annum, and on July 22, 2011, the due date for repayment. On January 24, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a notarial deed to the effect that a notary public would have no objection to the said loan (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) even if he/she immediately performed compulsory execution, in cases where a notary public fails to return the said loan (hereinafter “the instant loan”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On the grounds delineated below the plaintiff's assertion, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case shall not be permitted.

1) On January 201, 201, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) 12 vehicles, such as D purchased by the Plaintiff in C at a public sale in lieu of repayment of the instant loan; (b) the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

(2) On January 201, 201, the Plaintiff prepared the instant Notarial Deed on the condition that the Defendant received the ownership transfer registration document with respect to the instant vehicle from the Defendant, and the Defendant did not deliver the said documents to the Plaintiff, thus, the instant Notarial Deed is invalid.

B. On January 201, 201, the Defendant’s assertion 1: “The Plaintiff sold the instant vehicle to E, and the Plaintiff attempted to export the instant vehicle to E without paying the purchase price, and to transfer the vehicle to C. To prevent this, the Plaintiff attempted to transfer the name of the vehicle to another person.”