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

A. Around September 17, 2003, the Defendant prepared a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement with the Defendant as the principal and the Plaintiff’s agent, stating that “The Defendant: (a) on May 26, 2003, determined and lent KRW 520 million to C on September 26, 2003 as due date; (b) on September 26, 2003; and (c) on a interest rate of 60%; and (d) the Plaintiff guaranteed it.”

(No. 17157, 2003, No. 17157, hereinafter referred to as "notarial deeds of this case"). B.

C Co., on August 10, 2009, drafted a notarial deed of debt repayment contract (quasi-loan for Consumption) with the content that loans of KRW 470 million on September 16, 2003 will be paid at the rate of 12% per annum on August 10, 2009 to E who represented D on behalf of D.

(No. 662 of F, No. 6662 of 2009, hereinafter referred to as "notarial deeds" of 2009.

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 persons other than the Industrial Bank of Korea, and issued a seizure and collection order, which was issued as KRW 534,235,152, Sept. 25, 2012.

hereinafter referred to as "the seizure and collection order of this case"

D) On October 1, 2012, based on the instant order of seizure and collection, the Defendant collected KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff’s bank account of the Industrial Bank of Korea on October 1, 2012. [The grounds for recognition: the absence of dispute, the entries in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The notarial deed of this case is made up by the unauthorized Representation of C, and is null and void. Accordingly, according to the seizure and collection order of this case issued based on this, the Defendant collected KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff’s deposit account and there is no legal ground for collection between the Defendant and the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the notarial deed of 2009 to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment. 2) The notarial deed of this case is related to the same claim as the notarial deed of this case, and is prepared to exclude the Plaintiff from the surety in accordance with the Plaintiff’s claim.