1. A notary public between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the law firm No. 69, February 13, 2013, drafted by our law.

1. On February 13, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entrusted a notary public with the preparation of a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement with the purport that “the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 19,00,000,00 from February 13, 2013 to December 14, 2013, the due date for payment shall be 20% per annum, and the delay damages shall be 20% per annum, and if the Plaintiff fails to perform his/her monetary obligation under the above contract, the Plaintiff shall immediately be subject to compulsory execution, and the notary public shall prepare a notarial deed with the above content (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) under the deed No. 69 of 2013 as of the same day. The fact that the notary public prepared the notarial deed of this case (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) is either disputed between the parties or may be recognized by the statement in the evidence No. 2

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion stated that the Plaintiff filed a criminal charge against the Defendant for fraud on the ground that the Defendant did not repay the money after the preparation of the notarial deed in this case, but failed to institute a non-prosecution disposition without suspicion, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7,500,000 on the notarial deed in this case to the Plaintiff. Since the Plaintiff received the above proposal from the Defendant and paid KRW 2,000,000 to the Defendant, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,50,000 to the Defendant in relation to the notarial deed in this case, only KRW 7,500 (=50,000 - 2,000,000).

Accordingly, the plaintiff seeks a judgment against the defendant, such as the statement of claim.

3. Although there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant received reimbursement of KRW 2,00,000 from the Plaintiff regarding the obligation based on the instant notarial deed, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant agreed with the Plaintiff at the intervals of reducing the principal amount of KRW 19,00,000 on the instant notarial deed to KRW 7,50,000, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant based on the instant notarial deed is interesting to KRW 2,00,000,000, which the Defendant paid to the Defendant, as the date of the first pleading.