1. Certificates No. 66, 2009 prepared by us against the Plaintiff C on January 20, 2009 by us.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 20, 2009, our law firm drafted a notarial deed of monetary loan contract No. 66 of 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the "notarial deed of this case") and its main contents are as follows.

1) Defendant C lent KRW 5 million to Plaintiff A on September 8, 2008. (2) The due date is set as February 8, 2009, and interest shall be set as 48% per annum, and damages for delay shall be set as 48% per annum.

3) The Plaintiff B is jointly and severally and severally guaranteed the above obligation against the Defendant C by the Plaintiff. 4) If the Plaintiffs fail to perform the above obligation, the Plaintiffs are aware that there is no objection even if they are immediately subject to compulsory execution.

B. The notarial deed of this case states that Defendant D entrusted the preparation of the notarial deed of this case on behalf of the plaintiffs.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Plaintiff A’s claim against the Defendants

A. On September 8, 2008, Plaintiff A’s assertion borrowed KRW 5 million from Defendant D with interest rate of KRW 48% per annum. On the same day, Defendant D was returned KRW 500,000 as prior interest.

around January 2009, Defendant D needed documents, such as the Plaintiffs’ certificate of personal seal impression, to prepare a notarial deed on the above borrowed money to Plaintiff A.

Plaintiff

A delivered the above documents to Defendant D and delegated the preparation of a notarial deed, and there is no fact that at the time a creditor was granted the authority to prepare a notarial deed with a third party who is not Defendant D at the time.

Nevertheless, Defendant D prepared the instant notarial deed with the obligee as the third party, beyond the scope of authorization.

The notarial deed of this case is no longer effective as it was made upon the commission of the unauthorized Representative, and it is made by Defendant D on the behalf of both parties to Defendant C and Plaintiff A, and is not effective in violation of the principle of prohibition of dual representation under Article 124 of the Civil Act

Even if the instant notarial deed is valid, Plaintiff A from October 14, 2008 to January 11, 2012.