A. On September 8, 2010, the Plaintiff issued three copies of the Promissory Notes with face value of KRW 500,000,000, KRW 650,000,000, and KRW 739,000 (three copies of the Promissory Notes including the Plaintiff) to the Defendant (three issuers of the said Promissory Notes include the Plaintiff), and on October 13, 2010, a notary public drafted a notarial deed with the intent that each issuer of the said Promissory Notes upon commission of the issuer of each of the said Promissory Notes and the Defendant’s agent, as of October 13, 2010, upon receipt of a commission from the issuer of the said Promissory Notes and the Defendant’s agent, with respect to each of the said Promissory Notes, No. 2867, No. 2868, 2010, and No. 2869, each issuer accepted compulsory execution under each of the said Promissory Notes.

(No. 2868 of 2010, No. 2868 of 2010 for promissory notes of KRW 650,000,000.

On July 31, 2017, the Defendant agreed that the Plaintiff paid KRW 150,00,000 to the Defendant (30,000,000 already paid to the Defendant around July 13, 2017, and additionally paid KRW 120,000,000 to the Defendant) and that all the obligations owed to the Defendant, including the principal, time limit, and legal costs, have been settled. The Defendant agreed that the Plaintiff would return to the Plaintiff all executory notarial deeds, including the notarial deed in this case, a notary public for repayment (hereinafter “instant agreement”). On the same day, the Plaintiff paid KRW 120,00,000 to the Defendant in cash in accordance with the instant agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine the judgment on the cause of the claim, and find the fact that the defendant signed the agreement of this case (the defendant asserted that the agreement of this case was forged, but acknowledged the facts of signature by attending the third date for pleading), and according to the agreement of this case, the plaintiff paid KRW 150,000 to the defendant and exempted him from the remaining debts, the plaintiff is based on the notarial deed of this case.