A. On August 29, 2008, E, as a principal debtor, the Plaintiff as a joint and several surety, the Plaintiff as a joint and several surety, and the notary public borrowed KRW 110 million from the Defendant on April 5, 2008, as “E” in Article 2327 of the D Law Firm Deed 2008. E shall divide the above borrowed amount and pay KRW 3 million on 36 occasions from September 29, 2008 to August 29, 201, and pay KRW 200,000 on 29th day of September 29, 201. When E delays the repayment of principal and interest, the Plaintiff shall pay damages for delay and other damages by 25% per annum from the beginning date of delinquency until the actual deposit date. The Plaintiff shall guarantee the above debt as a joint and several surety and jointly perform the obligation with E” (hereinafter “notarial deed”).

B. E did not perform the obligation stipulated in the instant notarial deed.

Accordingly, based on the instant notarial deed, the Plaintiff recovered the amount of KRW 2,906,090 on August 9, 2009, and KRW 513,830 on November 15, 2012 from the Plaintiff and E following the execution procedure for corporeal movables.

C. On November 25, 2016, the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s assistantF made an additional agreement that “F pays 60 million won to the Defendant, while F makes the Defendant null and void the instant notarial deed against the Plaintiff, etc., the said KRW 60 million shall be divided and paid 30 million on the 30th day of each month from December 30, 2016 to May 30, 2019. If the F delays the payment of the said installment at once, the said additional agreement that “The Plaintiff, E, and F shall not raise any objection to the Defendant’s compulsory execution” was made by a notary public as of December 197, 2016.

However, on January 6, 2017, F paid only three million won on August 1, 2017, including KRW 500,000,000,000 won on September 29, 2017, and KRW 500,000,000 on September 29, 2017, the said additional arrangement was not implemented properly, and the invalidity of the instant authentic deed was revoked.

After that, the defendant is against the plaintiff and E on the basis of the notarial deed of this case.