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

A. A. Around November 2015 through December 12, 2015, the Plaintiff’s birth, together with E, decided to purchase the Defendant’s land processing plant F, which the Defendant substantially operates from the Defendant.

B. On January 22, 2016, the Plaintiff drafted and issued to the Defendant a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement (No. 86 of the C office of a notary public, No. 2016; hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) stating that “as to the loan amount of KRW 400 million, the repayment term was set at February 22, 2016, and the delay damages was set at 25% per annum, the debtor (the Plaintiff) did not raise any objection even if he was immediately subject to compulsory execution when he/she did not perform his/her monetary obligation under this contract.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1

2. Determination as to the claim

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s claim was prepared by an agreement to invalidate the said notarial deed if the Plaintiff’s Dong D deposits the loan from the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund to the Defendant within one month during the process of acquiring F from the Defendant.

However, although the defendant received KRW 100 million from the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, the defendant was issued a guarantee of KRW 100 million, but only received a guarantee of KRW 100 million, so the notarial deed of this case is valid and enforced compulsory execution.

As a result, the Plaintiff did not borrow KRW 400 million from the Defendant, and thus, the notarial deed of this case is null and void as a false declaration of agreement, or ② the notarial deed of this case was made by deception of the Defendant, and thus the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention is revoked through the delivery

③ In addition, in the event that the notarial deed of this case is deposited with the Defendant, the notarial deed (400 million won) was prepared under an agreement invalidating the Credit Guarantee Fund, and thus, the monetary loan contract is a contract under the condition of rescission. Since the Defendant received KRW 100 million from the Credit Guarantee Fund, the notarial deed of this case is invalid,

(b).