A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff is a Co., Ltd. C (Representative Director D; hereinafter “C”) on July 12, 2012.

(C) 600,00,000 won at par value, issuer C, E, F, Plaintiff on December 30, 2012, the place of issue and one promissory note issued in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”) at face value.

(1) On September 2, 2014, the Defendant (J, corporate registration number : K: K) prepared and delivered a payment undertaking (hereinafter referred to as “instant payment undertaking”) as follows to the Plaintiff on September 2, 2014 with respect to KRW 300,000,000 of the said Promissory Notes (hereinafter referred to as “the instant payment undertaking”) borrowed from the Plaintiff (the representative director H, corporate registration number : G): the Defendant’s representative director (J, corporate registration number : K) is liable for civil and criminal liability and subrogated by October 30, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (this case’s payment commitment, and the fact that the defendant’s corporate seal is affixed to the defendant’s corporate seal on the defendant’s trade name is presumed to be the authenticity of the entire document because there is no dispute between the parties. Accordingly, the defendant raises a defense that the entire document was forged. However, the following circumstances are as follows: ① if the defendant’s internal director of the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor’s Office forged the letter of payment commitment to Eul, the defendant filed a complaint for forgery of private document, etc. ② The prosecutor who belongs to the Seoul Central Public Prosecutor’s Office filed a complaint against the defendant, and the Seoul High Public Prosecutor’s Office ordered a second investigation on Jan. 6, 2016; ③ the prosecutor’s office affiliated with the Seoul Central Public Prosecutor’s office ordered the second investigation on Jan. 6, 2016.