1. Certificates No. 222, 2015, drawn up by the notary public C belonging to the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office against the plaintiff of the defendant at the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office, May 12, 2015.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. (1) On October 21, 2015, the Plaintiff, on May 9, 2015, issued a notarial deed (No. 222, 2015, hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) to the effect that the Plaintiff did not raise any objection even if he/she was immediately subject to compulsory execution when borrowing interest from the Defendant without stipulating that the Plaintiff would have become due and payable five million won from the Defendant, and that if the Plaintiff failed to perform his/her monetary obligation as a security, he/she would immediately be subject to compulsory execution.

(2) On February 20, 2017, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 30 million to the Defendant.

(3) On November 22, 2017, the Defendant, based on the instant authentic deed, received a seizure and collection order (Seoul District Court Seosan Branch 2017TTTT 2017TT 330) regarding the Plaintiff’s wage claim against the said company by designating the debtor as the Plaintiff and the third debtor as Hyundai Card Co., Ltd.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of the above recognition, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 30 million to the Defendant on February 20, 2017, and paid the money borrowed from the Defendant as well as KRW 5 million on May 9, 2015 under the notarial deed of this case. Thus, the claim on the notarial deed of this case was extinguished.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case should be denied.

2. The Defendant asserts that: (a) the Defendant lent KRW 221,929,163 in total to the Plaintiff from February 2, 2015 to July 2017 by means of cash payment, account transfer, subrogation and credit card lending, etc.; and (b) the Plaintiff repaid KRW 97,313,00 among the loans, the remainder of which remains after the Plaintiff repaid KRW 97,313,000 is KRW 124,616,163; and (c) the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed that the instant notarial deed would be useful as security for the said loan; (d) so, the Defendant asserts that the instant notarial deed exists the enforcement claim based on the instant notarial deed.

The execution certificate as to a certain legal relationship between the parties has been prepared.