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

A. On February 18, 2014, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant jointly and severally liable for the payment of the Plaintiffs, and the Defendant as the obligee, a notary public signed a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the following content as stated in No. 143 of the Do Joint Law Office No. 2014.

Article 1 (Purpose) The creditor lent KRW 149,002,00 to the debtor on February 18, 2014, and the debtor borrowed it.

Article 2 (Period and Method of Repayment) The repayment of KRW 149,002,00 on May 18, 2014 shall be made in lump sum.

Article 3 (Interest) Interest shall be paid on the date of repayment at the rate of eight percent per annum from February 18, 2014 to the due date for repayment.

When the obligor delays the repayment of principal or interest, the obligor shall pay the obligee damages for delay at the rate of 10% per annum on the delayed principal or interest.

B. On March 18, 2014, the Plaintiffs, E, F, and G established H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) on March 18, 2014 to carry on the business of manufacturing, importing, and selling in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant business”). From among the 20,000 shares of the Plaintiff Company’s total stocks, the Plaintiff A was allocated 3,00 shares (15%) among the 20,00 shares of the Nonparty Company, the Plaintiff B 2,40 shares (12%), E 3,60 shares (18%), E 3,60 shares (18%), and F’s I were allocated 5,00 shares (25%), G 5,00 shares (25%), and J 1,00 shares (5%).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 9, 11 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted as follows as the grounds for the instant claim.

1. The notarial deed of this case was only prepared by the plaintiffs for the reason that the non-party company is formally necessary in importing Dolets from the defendant, but does not actually have the intent to bear the debt against the defendant, and the representative director E was also aware of this.

Therefore, the Notarial Deed of this case is valid.