A. On August 26, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) issued one copy of a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) as of August 26, 201, which was known to the Plaintiff, J, I, I, and I’s husband, and the Plaintiff, the issuer’s Plaintiff, the beneficiary network K, and KRW 390,000,000,000; (b) the date of issuance; (c) August 26, 2010; (d) August 26, 2011; and (e) issued a notarial deed (hereinafter “instant authentic deed”) to the effect that a notary public recognizes compulsory execution under the said promissory note as of August 178 of 2010, and issued it to the deceased K.

B. On December 5, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that “The Promissory Notes issued the instant Promissory Notes with the meaning of guaranteeing the obligation of KRW 300 million against I and J. The issuance of the said Promissory Notes is invalid as it constitutes a false declaration of intention, fraud, or mistake, or as the underlying relationship of the Promissory Notes is nonexistent or terminated as repayment. Therefore, the said Promissory Notes does not exist as the obligations of the Promissory Notes amounting to KRW 390 million on the instant No. notarial deed.” On June 23, 2014, the Seoul East Eastern District Court filed a lawsuit against the deceased K as the Seoul Eastern District Court 2014Gahap7580 on June 23, 2014. 2) The Seoul Eastern District Court rejected all the Plaintiff’s assertion that the issuance of the instant Promissory Notes constitutes an expression of intention, fraud, or an expression of intent by mistake, and rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for partial reimbursement or extinguishment of the interest relationship as stated below.

The net K loaned KRW 300 million to J and I on August 26, 201, the interest rate of KRW 2% per month, and the date of payment of interest on August 26, 201. The Plaintiff issued the Promissory Notes in collaboration with J and I in the sense that the Plaintiff guarantees this. Therefore, the Promissory Notes amounting to KRW 390 million is KRW 390,000.