1. The defendant's certificate of notary public C office against the plaintiff is based on the notarial deed of debt repayment contract No. 464 of 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From April 2017, Defendant D jointly operated a mobile phone store (F) in E at port from April 2017. The Defendant invested approximately KRW 57.6 million in lease deposit for the establishment and operation of the said mobile phone store, and D directly operated the said mobile phone store and determined to pay monthly profits to the Defendant. 2) Defendant D attempted to use the name of the said mobile phone store as D, and completed the registration of the Plaintiff’s business in the name of the Plaintiff who was the spouse of D at the time due to credit problems.

3) On April 4, 2017, in order to secure the Defendant’s recovery of investment deposits, the Plaintiff signed and sealed the Defendant’s signature on the debtor column of the Notarial Deed recorded in the order, but did not participate at all in the process of opening, closing, closing, closing, etc. of the instant mobile phone store. 4) The Plaintiff was living separately with D from September 2017, and divorced from D around February 2018.

B. (1) Around October 2017, Defendant DG’s notarial deed preparation process 1) Defendant DG directly operated the said mobile phone store from that time to April 2018. During that process, from November 2, 2017 to March 7, 2018, Plaintiff D demanded the Defendant to transfer the name of business operator of the said mobile phone store from October 2017 to that of the Plaintiff’s business operator, who was in the name of the Plaintiff’s business operator, he/she kept in his/her custody, and the Defendant was also aware of such circumstances. (2) Plaintiff D also demanded G to transfer the name of business operator of the said mobile phone store from that of October 2017 to that of the Plaintiff’s business operator, who was in the name of the Plaintiff’s business operator.

3) From May 2018, Defendant DG consulted on whether to discontinue the business without running the aforementioned mobile phone store. On June 1, 2018, the Plaintiff reported the closure of the said mobile phone store in accordance with the aforementioned consultation. 4) Defendant DG operated the mobile phone store after the said report on the closure of business on June 1, 2018.