A. The Plaintiff is a KOSDAQ-listed corporation that aims at the business related to alternative energy. The Defendant is a corporation that runs the business of credit and collateral loan brokerage. 2) From March 30, 2010 to January 15, 2014; and D from January 15, 2014 to June 19, 2015, the Plaintiff’s representative director is a person who served as the Plaintiff’s representative director.

B. On August 12, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a notarial deed of a monetary loan loan agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant monetary loan agreement”) with a view to borrowing KRW 552,307,212 on August 18, 2014 on a yearly interest rate of 34.5% (hereinafter “the instant monetary loan agreement”). On the same day, the Plaintiff entered into a notarial deed stating that “if a monetary obligation under the instant monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “the instant monetary loan agreement”) fails to perform the instant loan obligation, the Defendant may enforce the instant loan obligation,” by adding the following:

(hereinafter referred to as "notarial deed of this case")

C. On August 10, 2015, the Defendant, based on the instant notarial deed, is the Seoul Central District Court Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Korea Southern Development”) for the Plaintiff’s development of South Korea from the Seoul Central District Court.

(1) The collection order of this case was issued with respect to the claim for the purchase price of goods (Seoul Central District Court 2015TTT 102841, hereinafter “the collection order of this case”).

(2) On September 25, 2015, the Korea Development Bank deposited KRW 909,835,237 with the Seoul Central District Court on the ground of the instant collection order, etc.

(Seoul Central District Court E). 3 The plaintiff on August 24, 2015 against the defendant on August 24, 2015: (1) the defendant did not lend the loan in this case to the plaintiff, and (2) the loan was lent even

Even if the monetary loan contract of this case is null and void, the plaintiff asserted that the monetary loan of this case was fully repaid, even if the monetary loan contract of this case is not null and void, and based on the authentic deed of this case.