1. Promissory notes, No. 211, 2006, drawn up by the Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff on July 18, 2006.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 21, 2006, the Defendant remitted KRW 200 million to A (the former trade name before the change: E; hereinafter referred to as “Bankruptcy Company”) a bankrupt corporation.

B. The Bankruptcy Company, the FF, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, and G issued Promissory Notes in the face value of KRW 400 million, the payee, the Defendant, the date of issuance, July 18, 2006, the date of payment, the place of payment, the place of payment, and the place of issuance. On the same day, when the payment of the Promissory Notes is delayed to the holders of the said Promissory Notes, a notary public who, without delay, recognizes the absence of objection thereto (hereinafter “notarial deeds of this case”).

C. On November 30, 2009, the Seoul Central District Court declared bankruptcy (Seoul Central District Court 2009Hahap33, 76(combined)) and appointed the plaintiff as the bankruptcy trustee. As the bankruptcy company is dissatisfied with the notarial deed of this case, the appeal court (Seoul High Court 2009Ra2671) is pending.

The Defendant reported the Promissory Notes on the Notarial Deed as a bankruptcy claim, and the Plaintiff raised an objection thereto and taken over the litigation procedure of this case.

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 10 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) on March 21, 2006, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's bankruptcy company made and executed the notarial deed of this case in order to borrow KRW 200 million from the defendant, an employee of H, who was engaged in credit business, etc. and secure the above loan principal and interest. On July 14, 2006, the bankruptcy company after which the bankruptcy company paid the defendant a loan of KRW 200 million and interest KRW 150 million to the defendant until September 29, 2006. The defendant was not registered credit service provider but actually engaged in credit business. Thus, the bankruptcy company was bankrupt company's above to the defendant.