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

A. On February 15, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C seeking restitution of unjust enrichment. On October 15, 2015, the appellate court rendered a judgment that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff 261,590,709 won and interest calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from October 15, 2015 to the date of full payment” (the foregoing judgment became final and conclusive on March 3, 2016).

(1) The first instance court: the Incheon District Court 2013Gahap2777, the second instance: the Seoul High Court 2014Na2048338, the third instance court: Supreme Court 2015Da245398, hereinafter referred to as "relevant final judgment"). (2) The Seoul High Court 2014Na2048, the

Based on the claim based on the relevant final judgment, the Plaintiff filed an application for a seizure and collection order with respect to the benefit claim that C holds against D (hereinafter “the medical corporation of this case”) “Medical Service Corporation” (Seoul Northern District Court 2016TBL9740), and received the said decision (Seoul Northern District Court 2016TBL), and the said collection order reached the medical corporation of this case on June 23, 2016.

C. On April 1, 2016, C drafted a notarial deed stating that “The Defendant lent KRW 120,000,000 to C on April 11, 2013, and C borrowed this. The said money was repaid in full on April 21, 2016.”

(No. 119, 2016 hereinafter referred to as "notarial deeds of this case") d.

On May 2, 2016, on the basis of the instant notarial deed, the Defendant received an assignment order of claims against the medical corporation of this case on May 2, 2016 (Seoul Northern District Court 2016TTTTTT 7034). The said assignment order was finalized on May 31, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5 evidence, Eul 2 and 3 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On April 1, 2016, the Plaintiff’s assertion C concluded a repayment agreement with the Defendant on the basis of the instant notarial deed in excess of the obligation, which ought to be revoked as a false agreement or a fraudulent act.

Therefore, against the defendant, who is a malicious beneficiary, the authentication of this case.