2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On October 25, 2017, a notary public drafted the instant notarial deed stating that “A law firm shall have no objection against the Plaintiff even if the Plaintiff is immediately subject to compulsory execution,” under Article 266 of the 2017, stating that “The Defendant loaned KRW 27.9% per annum to the Plaintiff on June 7, 2017, 200,000,000, and due date, November 23, 2017.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant lending”). B. The instant lending on the Notarial Deed was made.

The notarial deed of this case states that D, an agent of the plaintiff, entrusted the preparation of the notarial deed of this case on behalf of the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) D does not have the power of attorney to entrust the preparation of the instant notarial deed from the Plaintiff, and thus, the instant notarial deed is null and void. (2) The Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users prohibits a lending broker, etc. from receiving any payment in connection with loan brokerage (hereinafter “mediation commission”) from the other party to the transaction (Article 11-2(2)). The instant lending contract is a contract the principal purpose of which is to pay brokerage commission, and is null and void in violation of the mandatory law, good morals, and other social order.

B. 1) In full view of the first argument, it is recognized that D had the authority to commission the preparation of the instant authentic deed on behalf of the Plaintiff, taking into account the evidence Nos. 1, 4-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the first argument. The first argument is without merit. 2) In full view of the evidence Nos. 20, 8, and the purport of the entire argument, it is difficult to deem the instant loan was made mainly for the purpose of paying the brokerage fee.