1. Certificate No. 1343, 2014, written by the Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff on October 15, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 15, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to take over all the rights related to the PC business operated by the Defendant from the Defendant, and set the acquisition price at KRW 38.2 million (hereinafter “instant underwriting contract”), and as to the acquisition price, a notary public drafted a notarial deed stating that “the Plaintiff shall, by borrowing KRW 38.2 million from the Defendant, refund KRW 1.2 million on the 20th day of each month from November 2014 to June 2017, 2017, and pay KRW 1.0 million on June 2017, the Plaintiff shall pay the installment amount at least once, but if the installment amount has been delayed at least once, the benefit of the period shall be lost” (No. 1 evidence; hereinafter “notarial deed”).

B. On February 6, 2015, on the basis of the notarial deed of this case, the Defendant issued a claim seizure and collection order as the Gwangju District Court 2015TTT2081 by designating the Plaintiff as the debtor, the Nonghyup Bank, the New Bank, the Han Bank, the Han Bank, the Han Bank, the Han Bank, the Korean National Bank, and the Korean National Bank as the garnishee.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① (a) decided to take over the PC from the Defendant on October 13, 2014, and prepared the instant PC for the payment of the acquisition price. At the time of entering into the instant acquisition contract, the Defendant concluded an acquisition contract with the Plaintiff with the direction and experience of the Plaintiff, such as falsely notifying the Plaintiff of the scale of the PC sales. As such, the instant acquisition contract is null and void as an unfair juristic act; and (b) if the instant acquisition contract is not null and void, the Plaintiff cancelled the said acquisition contract on the ground of the Defendant’s deception; and (c) the Plaintiff did not perform the duty of cooperation under the instant acquisition contract, such as the Defendant’s failure to transfer the PC name to the Plaintiff, and disposed of the equipment after arbitrarily closing the PC.