(a) No. 801, a notary public, of 2014, the 20100 joint law offices.

On December 16, 2014, a notary public, at the commission of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, set up, on December 16, 2014, a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “the notarial deed of this case”) No. 801 of 2014, stating that “The Defendant lent KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff on December 16, 2014, the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant interest at 1% per month, and the Plaintiff shall pay the said KRW 150 million by May 15, 2015. If the Plaintiff delays the repayment of principal or interest, damages for delay calculated at the rate of 2% per month shall be paid. If the Plaintiff fails to immediately perform the said obligation, the notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “the notarial deed of this case”).

On August 7, 2015, a notary public, at the commission of the defendant E and the plaintiff, set up a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement with the purport that "the defendant lends KRW 90 million to the plaintiff on January 30, 2014, and the plaintiff pays 12% interest per annum to the defendant, and the plaintiff pays the above KRW 90 million to the defendant until September 30, 2015. If the plaintiff delays the repayment of principal or interest, the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24% per annum shall be paid. If the plaintiff delays the repayment of principal or interest, the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24% per annum shall be paid. If the plaintiff fails to immediately perform the above obligation, the notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement with the purport that "no objection is raised even if compulsory execution is performed."

On September 2, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 166 million to the Defendant.

On January 20, 2016, the Defendant issued a collection order as to the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of lease deposit against F by designating the title of the first notarial deed as the title of execution of this Court No. 2016TT258.

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, summary of the parties' assertion of the whole pleadings, and gist of the plaintiff's argument of this case was prepared by arranging the plaintiff's obligation to the defendant at the defendant's request as KRW 150 million while the plaintiff borrowed business funds from the defendant and used the business funds.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant have followed.