1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is an executory power, No. 73, 2014, drafted by the Plaintiff on January 14, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around December 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a transaction agreement with the Defendant Company with the content that the Plaintiff would use alcoholic beverages supplied by the Defendant Company and be provided with the subsidy of KRW 100 million (see attached Form 1; hereinafter “instant transaction agreement”).

B. On December 4, 2013, the Plaintiff and B issued a promissory note in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) which is the addressee company, the Defendant company, the face value of KRW 100 million, the payment date of KRW 100 million, the place of issuance, the place of payment, the place of payment, and the place of payment. On January 14, 2014, when a notary public delays the payment of the instant promissory note under Article 2014 No. 73 of the said deed, the Plaintiff and B issued a notarial deed (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) to the effect that no objection is raised even if they are immediately subject to compulsory execution (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

C. Since then, the Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 100 million to the Defendant Company, from February 11, 2014 to March 9, 2016.

On the other hand, on March 28, 2016, based on the instant notarial deed, the Defendant Company issued a collection order on the claim amounting to KRW 25,053,700 (principal principal KRW 25,000,000, enforcement cost KRW 53,700) as Seoul Southern District Court 2016TTTT 4247 (on the basis of the instant notarial deed).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. According to the facts as seen earlier prior to the determination of the cause of the claim, inasmuch as the obligation of promissory notes stated in the instant notarial deed was fully repaid, compulsory execution against the Plaintiff, whose title is the instant notarial deed, shall be denied.

B. As to the Defendant Company’s assertion, the Defendant Company received KRW 100 million payment from the Plaintiff, but on the other hand, delayed the payment of loans in installments, and received alcoholic beverages from a third party.