1. A notary public against the Plaintiff of Defendant B shall have the executory power of No. 112 of April 8, 2016, 2016, signed by the notary public against the Plaintiff.

1. Defendant C

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Judgment without holding any pleadings: Article 208(3)1 of the Civil Procedure Act;

2. Defendant B;

A. Basic facts 1) On April 8, 2016, the Plaintiff used only the part of the judgment on Defendant B (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant B”) as “Defendant” and omitted the name tag.

B) On May 6, 2016, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 9 million from the Defendant at an annual interest rate of 25%, and drafted the first notarial deed as indicated in Paragraph 1 of this Article, which is the purport of accepting compulsory execution in relation thereto. 2) On April 20, 2016, the Plaintiff promised to repay the amount of KRW 33.5 million borrowed from the Defendant on December 13, 2015 to April 25, 2016, along with interest calculated at an annual rate of 25% on the amount of KRW 33.5 million borrowed from the Defendant on December 13, 2015, and written each notarial deed as indicated in Paragraph 1 of this Article (hereinafter referred to as “each notarial deed”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 (including all of the paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Each of the instant notarial deeds is invalid on the grounds delineated below the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment.

① The Plaintiff did not fully borrow 42.5 million won as stated in each of the instant notarial deeds from the Defendant.

At the time of the preparation of each of the notarial deeds in this case, the Plaintiff’s wife E was closely related to the Defendant, including the receipt of the letter of trust from the Defendant at the time of the preparation of each of the notarial deeds in this case. The Defendant prepared each of the notarial deeds in this case, even though there was no debt against the Defendant, inasmuch as the Defendant did not prepare the notarial deed to the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not return the notarial deed to E at home without returning it to the Plaintiff’s house, and threatened the Plaintiff’s home with the Plaintiff’s birth to the Plaintiff, etc., and led the Plaintiff’s work to find out the notarial deed

② Even if not, each of the notarial deeds of this case is the defendant.