1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A notary public against the plaintiff is a law firm.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows. The plaintiff’s argument emphasized by this court are as follows, except for the addition of “2. Additional Judgment” under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the court’s explanation as to this case is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Use] Part 3 to 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be followed as follows.

On August 13, 2015, the original and the defendant issued by the notary public No. 3 No. 247 of the certificate of the General Law Office by the law firm, which is a major matter as follows, No. 2015, No. 3 of the No. 1 of the No. 3 of the No. 1 of the No. 2015

(1) On August 13, 2015, Article 1 of the Notarial Deed of a Debt Settlement Contract: (a) the Plaintiff, on August 13, 2015, promised to assume the following obligations from the Defendant and agreed to repay the obligations under this Agreement; and (b) the Defendant approved the payment. The obligation amount: (c) the repayment period for the loan Article 2 (Period and Method of Repayment): March 31, 2016: (d) the repayment method: 25,50,000 out of the said amount shall be from September 2015 to March 10, 2016; and (d) the remaining 31,250,000,000 won shall be repaid each month for seven months from March 31, 2016; and (e) the remaining 31,250,000 won shall be paid immediately from the Plaintiff’s repayment of the principal or interest to the Defendant without delay, and (e) the remainder of the principal or interest shall be paid without delay to the Defendant:

3. When the plaintiff delays payment in installments or payment of interest once;

2. The Plaintiff’s additional determination is the first mortgagee of the amount repaid by the Plaintiff and D to the Defendant and the instant vehicle.