1. Certificate No. 101, 2017, drawn up by the Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff on July 17, 2017 by the principal legal officer of the limited liability law firm (LLC).

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff is a limited company that runs the consulting business for corporate acquisition and merger. The Defendant is a person who was appointed as the Plaintiff’s director on May 12, 2017 and completed registration. On May 16, 2017, the Plaintiff was appointed as the representative director and completed registration on May 17, 2017.

On July 17, 2017, the Defendant, on behalf of the Plaintiff, issued two copies of each Promissory Notes amounting to KRW 500 million per face value to the Defendant himself (hereinafter “each Promissory Notes”). On the same day, a notary public commissioned the Plaintiff to prepare each of the notarial deeds as indicated in Paragraph (1) and each of the notarial deeds (hereinafter “each of the notarial deeds of this case”) stating the content of recognizing the compulsory execution of each of the Promissory Notes to the law firm (with limited liability).

On July 17, 2017, a notary public prepared each of the notarial deeds of this case at the commission of the defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, audit of the purport of the whole pleadings, or the so-called director's act of self-transaction conducted without approval of a general meeting of members is invalid between a limited

(Article 564(3) of the Commercial Act and approved by the auditor or the general meeting of members with respect to the act of self-transaction of directors.

(2) If the director does not require such approval, he shall, by himself, assert and prove that the director is not required to do so.

According to the facts of the above recognition, the issuance of each of the Promissory Notes by the Defendant constitutes an act of self-trade of directors under Article 564(3) of the Commercial Act and must be approved by the auditor or the general meeting of members.

There is no evidence to prove the special circumstances that there is no need to take or go through.

Therefore, each of the Promissory Notes in this case is null and void without any need to examine whether the issuance of each of the Promissory Notes in this case constitutes an act of representation in breach of trust, and each of the notarial deeds in this case against the plaintiff by the defendant.