1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, No. 242 of the 2017 deed, drafted on February 15, 2017, No. 242.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 15, 2017, the Plaintiff drafted a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) No. 242, No. 2017, stating that the Defendant lent KRW 440 million to the Plaintiff between the Defendant and the Defendant.

On February 15, 2017, Article 1 (Purpose) creditor (Defendant) lent KRW 440 million to the debtor (Plaintiff) on February 15, 2017.

Article 2 (Period and Method of Repayment) From February 2, 2017 to May 2017, repayment shall be made in the amount of KRW 100 million as of the end of each month, and repayment shall be made in the amount of KRW 40 million as of June 2017.

When the debtor under Article 5 delays the repayment of the principal, he/she shall pay the creditor the delayed damages at the rate of 10% per annum for the delayed principal.

Article 6 (Forfeiture of Maturity) If an obligor falls under any of the following subparagraphs, he/she shall, as a matter of course, lose the benefit within the time limit for the obligations of the borrowed loan and immediately repay all of the remainder of the debt, even if no other notification or peremptory notice

3. If the debtor delays the payment of the installment;

B. On November 13, 2017, the Defendant applied for a seizure and collection order of the Plaintiff’s deposit claim as Seoul Central District Court 2017TTTT No. 19901 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not repay the amount stated in the provisional claim, and received a decision of acceptance from the court on the 16th of the same month, and the seizure and collection order was served on the third debtor around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5 through 8, Eul evidence 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main argument

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff did not receive a loan of KRW 440 million as stated in the instant notarial deed from the Defendant, as well as the instant case.