1. The Plaintiff’s notary public against the Defendant, No. 239, March 17, 2014, No. 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 25, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a partnership business agreement with the Defendant to invest and operate precious metal sales stores in an amount of KRW 3 million (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”).

The Defendant paid 20 million won investment to the Plaintiff in accordance with the instant trade agreement.

(s) KRW 10 million shall not be paid separately with the earnings from the operation of precious metal store. (b)

On March 17, 2014, in order to secure the Defendant’s investment funds, the Plaintiff issued one copy of a promissory note, which is C, at the time of the date of payment, March 17, 2014, the issuer, the Defendant, the face value of KRW 30 million, the issue date, August 17, 2014, and the payment date, August 17, 2014, respectively, and then delayed the payment of the said promissory note, the Plaintiff drafted a notarial deed as stated in Paragraph (1) of the order recognizing the existence of no objection even if it is immediately subject to compulsory execution (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

C. However, on May 2, 2014, the instant trade agreement was not properly implemented, and on May 2, 2014, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a content-certified mail to the effect that the instant trade agreement would return KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff.

On May 15, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a franchise agreement with the Defendant on the operation of the “E” precious metal store on the first floor of Asan City Holdings (as the headquarters, the Plaintiff actively cooperates with the Defendant’s sales activities, and at the same time, requires the Plaintiff to use the trademark and trade name owned by the Plaintiff and transfer the know-how of its operation, etc., but in return, the Plaintiff would receive KRW 20 million for the payment of royalties (hereinafter “instant franchise agreement”). The Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 20 million as investment funds under the instant franchise agreement in lieu of the payment of the royalties.

E. Afterward, the Defendant commenced the instant franchise store’s business, and terminated the business around August 2014.

[Ground of recognition] There is no dispute.