1. A deed drawn up by the Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff on April 11, 2014, in which the Defendant’s Joint Law Office was written by law firms.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is the representative director and the largest shareholder of C (the former trade name before the change: D; hereinafter referred to as “C”) who is engaged in the development of smartphone display and Internet IT-based business model consulting, etc., and the defendant is C's shareholder.

On April 10, 2014, the Defendant concluded a new share subscription contract with C to acquire the said shares in KRW 99,982,381 per share ( KRW 23,333 per share) (hereinafter “instant underwriting contract”).

On April 11, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant approved the fact that a notary public, on April 11, 2014, at the Act No. 2014, “the Plaintiff (debtor) bears the obligation of KRW 1 billion for loans from the Defendant (creditor) on April 15, 2014, and promised to repay the said obligation at a rate of 20% per annum on April 15, 2015, the due date and time of repayment, and the delayed payment rate, and shall be approved by the Defendant. In the event that the Plaintiff fails to perform the said obligation, a notary public drafted a notarial deed of debt repayment contract (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) that provides that there is no objection even if compulsory execution is conducted.

On April 15, 2014, the defendant deposited KRW 1 billion into the national bank account of C.

On February 11, 2016, the Defendant was issued an order of seizure of shares, based on the instant notarial deed, with the amount claimed as KRW 1,159,452,054, which was based on the Seoul Central District Court 2016TT No. 1708, which seized the Plaintiff’s 88,333 shares against C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings in accordance with the contract of this case that the defendant paid KRW 1 billion to Eul as the price for the acquisition of new shares in accordance with the contract of this case, and requested the plaintiff to prepare the above notarial deed in order to guarantee that the above KRW 1 billion is used as C's project cost, and there is no reason to lend one billion won to the plaintiff.