A. On September 17, 2003, the Defendant prepared a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement with D and the Plaintiff’s agent, stating that “the Defendant: (a) on May 26, 2003, the Defendant paid due date for payment of KRW 520 million to D and the Plaintiff; and (b) on September 26, 2003, the Defendant lent KRW 60 million to the Plaintiff at 60% per annum.”

(No. 17157, 2003, No. 17157, 2003, hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”). The loan certificate which caused the No. notarial deed of this case is written on the part of the joint and several sureties.

B. D Co., Ltd. drafted a notarial deed of debt repayment contract (quasi-loan for consumption) with the content that loans of KRW 470 million on August 10, 2009 and September 16, 2003 shall be due and payable at the rate of 12 percent per annum, August 10, 2009, and 12 percent per annum.

(No. 662 of 209), No. 6662, c.

Nevertheless, based on the instant notarial deed, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to issue a seizure and collection order, which was issued against the Seoul Eastern District Court 2012TTTT No. 201540, the third obligor, and three other parties, and received the seizure and collection order, which was issued on September 25, 2012, with the claimed amount of KRW 534,235,152.

(hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”). D.

On October 1, 2012, the Defendant collected KRW 50,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s deposit account of the Industrial Bank of Korea, based on the instant seizure and collection order.

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the return of unjust enrichment of KRW 50,00,000 and its delay damages and lost at the first instance trial (No. 2013da36351). However, in the appellate trial, the Plaintiff won the claim for the return of unjust enrichment of KRW 50,000 and its delay damages on the ground that the obligation based on the instant notarial deed was extinguished (No. 2014Na2073). Accordingly, the Defendant appealed and remanded only the damages for delay, and the Defendant appealed and remanded only the damages for delay, and the damages for delay was finally determined on June 23, 2015 (Supreme Court Decision 2015Da15696).

(Court 2015Na6690). This decision became final and conclusive on November 15, 2015.

F. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s defendant.