1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff (Law Firm C, October 2, 2014), No. 522, Oct. 2, 2014.

In full view of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1, 2, and 2-2 of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2-2, witness D’s testimony, and fact-finding results and the purport of all pleadings with respect to the Chuncheon District Court's office on April 29, 2014, the Defendant filed a complaint with the Defendant on April 29, 2014 as fraud, embezzlement, and receipt of KRW 20 million loan from D on May 25, 2014; D filed a claim for summary order of KRW 6297,000 for the same business on July 25, 2014 and paid a fine of KRW 2 million around that time; D prepared a notarial deed with respect to the Defendant by not later than 0,000 won until December 31, 2014, the Defendant also prepared a notarial deed with the content of the loan for consumption with the Defendant on July 25, 2014.

The process of preparing the authentic deed of this case revealed the above facts and, in particular, D prepared a loan certificate of KRW 20 million from the defendant around the beginning of May 2014 and paid a fine of KRW 2 million by paying it. On October 2, 2014, it is difficult to find any particular motive or reason to pay a sum of KRW 40 million to the defendant by having the plaintiff repay the notarial deed of KRW 20 million to the defendant separately from preparing D. As to the process of receiving the above facts of borrowing KRW 20 million from the investigative agency, the defendant is presumed to have received KRW 30 million from the investigative agency as to the circumstance of accepting the notarial deed of this case.