A. Under the Defendant’s monetary loan agreement (Evidence 1), although the Defendant and F entered as a joint lessee, F merely entered as a joint lessee for reasons of remittance convenience, etc., the lender was the Defendant, on March 9, 2011, to lend a short-term driving fund of KRW 700 million to A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”) and D (hereinafter “D”) that is a subsidiary company A (hereinafter “instant repayment date”), and (i) remitted KRW 700 million to D’s account in the name of public column, D’s representative director E’s joint guarantee), F or G on the same day.

B. A and D issued Promissory Notes No. 1 at par value, KRW 1.1 billion at sight of the date of payment, place of payment, place of payment, each of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the addressee, the Defendant, and the date of issuance of the Promissory Notes No. 9, March 9, 2011 (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes No. 1”). On the same day, a notary public, at around 518, 201, delayed the payment of the Promissory Notes No. 1 to the Defendant under the continental Notes No. 518, a notary public drafted a notarial deed recognizing that there is no objection even if he/she is subject to compulsory execution (hereinafter “notarial Deed No. 1”).

C. On March 15, 2011, the Defendant: (a) lent a short-term driving fund of KRW 1.4 billion to A and D (hereinafter “instant lending or borrowing”); (b) transferred KRW 1.4 billion to D’s account in the name of H Co., Ltd. on the same day.

A and D, in order to secure the debt of the second loan of this case, issued a promissory note with the face value of KRW 2.1 billion, payment at sight, place of payment, place of payment, each of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the addressee, the defendant, and the date of issuance on March 15, 2011 (hereinafter “second Promissory Notes”). On the same day, a notary public shall delay the payment of the second bill of this case to the defendant under the No. 92 of the certificate of delivery at the law firm¡¯s own seat.