A. A around June 2015, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) explained to the Defendant on the E-Tech program, a subsidiary of D’s headquarters in Malaysia, and decided to invest the Defendant’s total account (6.5 million won per account, total of 45.5 million won) in the aforesaid program.

B. On July 1, 2015, in order to guarantee the principal of the Defendant, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) prepared and issued a notarial deed for a loan for consumption (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) to the Defendant under C Law Firm 2015 No. 456. On the same day, the Plaintiff F and G Co., Ltd. (former H Co., Ltd.) jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) by preparing the said notarial deed.

C. On June 26, 2018, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) transferred USD 19,464 to the Defendant, and thereafter the Defendant changed the password of the account E, and the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) left the management of the account that A had been dismissed to another person.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 3 (including branch numbers for those with branch numbers), the purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) asserts that the principal guaranteed to the Defendant by remitting USD 19,464 was fully repaid, and the Defendant thereafter entrusted to another person the change and management of the account password, and thus, the obligation based on the instant authentic deed does not exist any longer.

The fact that the Defendant received USD 19,464 from the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) in cash and received USD 30,80,000,000 from the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) is the person, and if the above amount is combined, the Defendant would have paid the above amount more than KRW 45,50,000 which is the guaranteed amount under the notarial deed of this case.

On June 25, 2015, the defendant does not return the investment money to the seven account invested on June 25, 2015, but invested on November 17, 2015.