The following facts may be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if Gap evidence 1-1-8, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 23, Eul evidence 2-2, and Eul evidence 2-2 through 4 are included in the purport of the whole pleadings:

The Plaintiff’s wife C borrowed KRW 15,00,000 from the Defendant on October 19, 201, KRW 15,000,000 on November 16, 201, KRW 15,000,000 on November 16, 201, and KRW 15,000 on January 201, and KRW 45,000 on March 6, 2012.

C and the Defendant settled C’s borrowing amount of KRW 130,00,000, around August 2012. At the Defendant’s request, C set the interest on the said borrowing amount of KRW 2% per month and the due date on November 30, 2012, and promised C, the husband, and his mother, as joint and several sureties, to prepare a notarial deed of a monetary loan for consumption.

Accordingly, on August 29, 2012, the Defendant: (a) received from C a document necessary for preparing a notarial deed from C, the Plaintiff, and D as his/her agent the Defendant and delegated the Defendant with the power to commission the preparation of a notarial deed, such as the foregoing paragraph (B); and (b) received the power of attorney and a certificate of personal seal impression of C, Plaintiff, and D; and (c) on behalf of C, Plaintiff, and D, a notary public entrusted the preparation of a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement to a law firm mission.

On August 31, 2012, a notary public borrowed KRW 130,00,00 from the Defendant on August 29, 2012, the mission of the law firm was as follows: “C shall pay the interest by November 30, 2012; and the interest shall be paid by 2% on the 30th day of each month; and the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and D shall jointly and severally guarantee the obligation of the said C; and if the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and D fail to perform the said obligation, they shall immediately be subject to compulsory execution, set up a notarial deed of money loan agreement (the same shall apply to the notarial deed written in the text; hereinafter referred to as “instant notarial deed”).

However, on December 12, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that there is no obligation based on the Notarial Deed of this case.