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

A. In around 2014, the Defendant husband Co., Ltd entered into a lease contract with E within the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu D history, and opened “F bread house”. In the process, the Defendant Co., Ltd issued a promissory note with the issuer C, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, the face value KRW 9.7 million, the date of issuance on December 20, 2014, and the due date on June 19, 2015, and a notary public, on December 23, 2014, prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a notarial deed (see subparagraph (a) recognizing that there is no objection even if he/she was immediately subject to compulsory execution.

B. Around August 2015, C newly opened a bread house on the first floor of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H building. In that process, in order to secure a monetary loan from the Defendant, C, the issuer, the Plaintiff, the face value 200,2200,000 won, the date of issuance, August 10, 2015, the due date of payment, August 10, 2016, and on August 10, 2015, a notary public issued a notarial deed (see subparagraph 1 of A) to the effect that there is no objection if he/she delays the payment of this promissory note under the G Law Firm Certificate No. 266, a notary public, even if he/she is immediately subject to compulsory execution, and put it to the Plaintiff.

C. Since August 10, 2015 and August 11, 2015, the Plaintiff wired KRW 5 million to C, respectively, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 5 million out of the construction cost of the son’s inside brea, on August 13, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5 million to C, respectively.

On the other hand, at around August 12, 2015, C prepared a letter (see the evidence No. 2 of this case; hereinafter “each letter of this case”) with the content that “C is liable to repay the amount of KRW 22,00,000,000,000,000, as of August 10, 2015, to the Plaintiff.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, appraiser I's written appraisal results, and fact inquiry results against J.