1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is a promissory note No. 2989, 201, drawn up by C on May 20, 201 by Law Firm C.

1. Determination as to the cause of the claim (1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant decided that the Plaintiff and the Defendant engaged in the business of opening and operating the volatile club around 2010; (2) the Plaintiff and the Defendant were unable to pay the lease deposit and the construction cost in the process of leasing the business building B2 commercial buildings of Gangdong-gu Seoul under the Plaintiff’s name; (3) the Plaintiff issued a promissory note with the face value of KRW 15 million on March 8, 201 and the addressee’s promissory note with the Defendant (hereinafter “the Promissory note in this case”) with the Notarial Law Firm C2011 No. 2989 on May 20, 201 (hereinafter “Notarial Deed in this case”); and (4) the Defendant’s receipt of a notarized promissory note to the Plaintiff prior to the receipt of the instant promissory note in this case contains no dispute between the parties to the instant agreement and the Plaintiff’s submission of the notarial Deed No. 1500 on the grounds that they did not actually receive any debt number 1 to the Plaintiff.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff and the Defendant in collusion issued the Promissory Notes only formally in order to avoid the collection of claims or compulsory execution from the creditors of the issuer without the intent to pay for the genuine debt of the Promissory Notes or acquire the Promissory Notes.

As such, the issuance of the Promissory Notes in this case constitutes a false declaration of agreement and invalid.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case should not be permitted.

As to this, the defendant lent at least 88.5 million won to the plaintiff with respect to the opening of the volatile club, the notarial deed of this case is KRW 88.5 million.