2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a company running a notarial deed wholesale business, and the Defendant is a law firm established for the purpose of performing the duties, etc. of attorneys-at-law. 2) C was registered in the name of friendly job offering F while opening the business of “E” in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, and entered into a liquor supply contract with the Plaintiff around that time.

3) In order to obtain a loan for business funds from the Plaintiff, C is a promissory note with the issuer’s “F, C,” and face value as “20 million won” (hereinafter “instant promissory note”).

(4) G submitted the instant promissory note and the power of attorney without knowledge of the forgery, and entrusted the Defendant with the authentication in the name of F, C, and the Plaintiff, etc. on June 16, 2010. The Defendant notarized the instant promissory note as No. 3429 by the No. 3429 and applied for the authentication of the said notarial deed.

B delivered to the Plaintiff.

5 On June 17, 2010, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 20 million to the account requested by C by entering the person transferred to the account as “FE”.

B. On November 30, 2012, the circumstances leading up to the relevant criminal procedure C was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of forging securities and the crime of forging private documents by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Ma224 on November 30, 2012. The Seoul Central District Court appealed as 2013No2550 and was sentenced to six months. The above appellate judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

C. The Plaintiff was issued a collection order for F’s deposit claims based on the Notarial Deed of Promissory Notes issued by Seoul Eastern District Court 2010TTY 23527.

2 The F is the Seoul Eastern District Court 2013Kadan63876.