A. On August 27, 2012, the Plaintiff received from D a promissory note No. 130 million won at par value (No. 710, 2012) from D, and based on the above notarial deed, the Plaintiff was issued a lease deposit return claim against D Korea Land and Housing Corporation (a lease deposit return claim due to the termination of a lease agreement on No. 1203, 1203,201, 2000,000 won) with the Suwon District Court 2012TT as the obligor D and third obligor, based on D’s notarial deed. The above order was served on the Korea Land and Housing Corporation at that time.

B. On May 3, 2011, the No. 1203, 201, the No. 1201-201-201-201-201-2 of the Promissory Notes No. D and the Defendant entered into a sub-lease contract with the term of contract of KRW 80 million and the period of contract from May 30, 201 to 24 months.

The above sub-lease contract states that the Plaintiff is the agent of the lessor, but the special agreement states that “The deposit is a promissory note notarized. The nature of a notarized portion: the contract is entered into (F) and notarized on behalf of the Plaintiff and the lessor.”

On June 1, 2011, a law firm’s rate is KRW 80 million at the face value of a Promissory Notes, issue date May 31, 2011, and May 30, 2013: Plaintiff, payee (creditor): Defendant, client and payee’s agent G” written a notarial deed (hereinafter “instant promissory note notarial deed”) that recognizes compulsory execution on promissory notes with respect to which “The issuer and payee’s agent G.”

C. On January 28, 2014, based on the authentic deed of the Promissory Notes in this case, the Defendant is based on the original deed of the Promissory Notes in this case, with the amount of KRW 80 million claimed by Suwon District Court 2014TT2032, the Plaintiff, and the Korea Land and Housing Corporation of the third obligor, and the Plaintiff is based on the attachment and assignment order stated in the A.