The Defendants had been married between husband and wife who completed the marriage report on February 1, 2011, and the Plaintiff was employed as an employee of the restaurant operated by Defendant B.

1. Name B of the debtor;

2. Name A of the creditor;

3. The above obligor’s name E shall borrow from the obligee a total sum of KRW 1,00,000.

The money borrowed will be paid immediately by the debtor from the building owner of the G cafeteria in the Dong-gu, which was the former funeral. If the debtor has failed to pay the money, I will have to pay the money in lieu of her husband E.

On June 9, 2014, the Defendants drafted a loan certificate (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) with the following content on the Plaintiff.

On July 21, 2014, Defendant C sent text messages to the Plaintiff on the account number, and the Plaintiff sent the account number of Hbank in the name of the Plaintiff to Defendant C.

From July 21, 2014 to May 23, 2016, Defendant C remitted each of the KRW 1,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s above account, respectively, from July 21, 2014 to May 23, 2016. On December 5, 2014, Defendant C remitted each of KRW 15,00,000 to the Plaintiff’s above account, and KRW 50,000 as of December 8, 2014.

On January 11, 2017, Defendant C filed a lawsuit seeking divorce and designation of a person with parental authority against Defendant B (C Changwon District Court 2017ddan50086), and on May 12, 2017, Defendant C completed a divorce report on June 5, 2017.

[Grounds for recognition] The defendants' assertion as to the authenticity of the loan certificates of this case as to Gap's non-contentious facts, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 11, Eul's evidence Nos. 3, and the purport of the whole argument as to the authenticity of the loan certificates of this case as to the plaintiff's assertion as to the establishment of the authenticity of the loan certificates of this case. However, since there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the defendant Eul's above assertion is without merit.

Defendant C, without authority, bears the seals of Defendant C, as well as the name indicated in the loan certificate (No. 1) of this case.