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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The Plaintiff’s application for compulsory auction (1) The Plaintiff’s application for compulsory auction with D is a notarial deed under a monetary loan contract (No. 12, 2013, which was written by a notary public by law firm Dong-dong) entered into with D, with its title, and is a building owned D as Busan District Court F on December 31, 2013, 200 M234.9 square meters and above ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

A) An application for compulsory auction against a real estate (hereinafter “instant compulsory auction”) was filed.

(2) On February 13, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction of the instant real estate with the right to collateral security (a total of KRW 490,000,000) established on the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant voluntary auction”), which was conducted on February 13, 2014 with the Busan District Court G, as well as with the instant compulsory auction (hereinafter “instant voluntary auction”), which was the preceding case, with the case of the instant compulsory auction, a dual auction procedure was conducted.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant auction”). B.

1) On March 13, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement and a notarial deed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”) at the office of the Defendant and the notary public C (hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”).

(1) On the same day, a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement (No. 289 of 2015 prepared by a notary public C on March 13, 2015) stating that “The Defendant lent KRW 150,000,000 to the Plaintiff without interest, and the maturity shall expire on March 20, 2015” (hereinafter referred to as “notarial deed of this case”).

2) The instant agreement was written by H, who was present at the time, using a computer program, in most of the contents thereof, as seen below.

However, the last proviso of the instant agreement seems to be a clerical error in the notarial deed on March 13, 2015.

(No. 289 of 2015) applies only to F cases where A awards a contract.

“The portion” is, upon the request of the plaintiff and the defendant, H after preparing the notarial deed of this case.