Where the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

On June 201, the Defendant received from D the claim based on the promissory note process certificate for E (in face value of KRW 97 million and KRW 60 million) from D, and sentenced the Defendant to receive a collection order by seizing the claim against the Republic of Korea while the method of executing the claim was insufficient.

On April 2013, the Defendant submitted a certified copy of a promissory note process with executory capacity of No. 222, 2009 (the purport that the holder of a promissory note may enforce compulsory execution on the issuer E’s property) in the Incheon District District Court’s civil petition office, which was located in 163 Doo-ro 17, Nam-gu, Incheon District Court’s 163, the Defendant submitted the application for seizure and collection order to the person who is not an employee of the above court

However, D, the Defendant’s hand son, was investigated by the Suwon District Public Prosecutor’s Office, which was suspected of forging the above process deed and promissory note in around 2012. Moreover, in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the absence of a debt against the Defendant, the Defendant had already been aware that the original of the above process deed was false, while the said court employees did not know that the above process of promissory note was false.

Accordingly, the defendant exercised the original copy of a non-performing fair deed for the purpose of exercising the right.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect against D or the defendant by the prosecution;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect concerning F by the prosecution;

1. Certificates of work progress ( Promissory Notes of 97 million won), certificates of work progress ( Promissory Notes of 60 million won); and

1. The details of litigation cases involving the confirmation of non-existence of a debt 9017, text of the judgment, and protocol of examination of witness of the party D in the Suwon District Court Support 2012

1. The details of the instant case’s distribution of dividends and the decision on distribution of dividends in the Suwon District Court Decision 2013 Gohap 2921

1. Court rulings, such as forgery of securities, which include assistance in the preparation of source of water or source of water or source of income tax 2012 highest 2126 highest price;

1. Incheon District Court.