2.(a)

C (former Name: B) on November 7, 2012, the par value of which against the defendant on November 7, 2012 is seventy thousand.

A. The Plaintiff’s claim 1) filed a lawsuit against B, etc. with the Seoul District Court Decision 2003Da118824 decided on July 21, 2003, the Seoul District Court rendered a favorable judgment in full that “B, and D jointly and severally, for KRW 12,031,210 to a business securitization specialized company and KRW 11,281,803 among them, 11,281,803 to the business securitization specialized company and KRW 11,281,803 from September 29, 1998 to July 16, 2003, and 200 to the day of full payment.” The above judgment was finalized on August 13, 2003 to the effect that the Plaintiff succeeded to the execution clause by public notice as a successor to the execution clause.

(B) The Plaintiff’s claim against B based on the above judgment (hereinafter “instant claim”).

Auction B on the instant real estate, which is the residence of B, leased the lease deposit of KRW 60 million in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant real estate”) No. 401, B, and resided on July 12, 201 and on August 30, 201, the date of the move-in report and the fixed date of August 30, 201.

However, on March 8, 2012, when a compulsory auction (Seoul Eastern District Court E; hereinafter “instant related auction”) was commenced on the instant real estate, B filed a report on the right and demand for distribution on the basis of the lease deposit deposit deposit claim with KRW 60 million on May 4, 2012.

C. On November 7, 2012, No. B, a promissory note and a notarial deed, issued and delivered to the Defendant one copy of the Promissory Notes, each of which is the payee’s Defendant, the face value of KRW 70,000,000,000,000 for payment, sight payment, place of issue, place of payment, and place of payment (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”). On the same day, a notary public would delay the payment of the obligation of the instant Promissory Notes with the law firm in the form of flat No. 2012.