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

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of coffee manufacturing, selling, exporting and importing, etc., and the Defendant is a company running a credit business. 2) A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) is a company running an Internet solution and service development business, etc., and E is a representative director of D.

B. On June 16, 2017, the Plaintiff prepared a loan agreement with the Defendant on September 15, 2017 that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 150 million at an interest rate of 27.9% per annum, and issued a promissory note with the Defendant at a face value of KRW 195 million at a face value. A notarized on the same day (No. 573 of C’s No. 2010, 2017, which belongs to the Incheon District Public Prosecutor’s Office), and the Defendant deposited KRW 150 million at the Plaintiff’s account as the representative of the Plaintiff’s. (2) On June 30, 2017, the Plaintiff made a loan agreement with the Defendant with a face value of KRW 200 million at a face value of KRW 200,000,000,000 per annum 29,000,000 per annum.

The notarial deed of this case was prepared on the same day to recognize the compulsory execution of the said Promissory Notes, and the Defendant deposited KRW 200 million into the F’s account, the representative of the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 16, 17, 18, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 14 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The primary argument is that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 350 million from E, who is not the Defendant, but the Defendant, and only formally requested the Defendant to prepare and deliver a loan agreement and a notarial deed in the name of the Defendant for the convenience of collection.

Therefore, both the loan agreements and notarial deeds made between the plaintiff and the defendant are valid.