1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiffs is based on the notarial deed of the bill No. 22, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiffs agreed to resell each of the instant real estate to a third party when concluding a sales contract with the Defendant and the Defendant for the purchase of Nos. 110 and 111 (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).

B. On January 14, 2015, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant drafted an implementation agreement with the Plaintiffs to pay incentives of 112,346,080 won for the sale of each of the instant real estate to the Plaintiffs. The said agreement included the content that the Plaintiffs would return incentives that the Plaintiffs received from the Defendant where the sales contract is cancelled due to the reasons attributable to the Plaintiffs on each of the instant real estate.

C. In order to secure the Defendant’s right to claim the return of incentives under the implementation agreement, the Plaintiffs issued a promissory note with the Defendant’s face value of KRW 112,346,080 (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) as an addressee, and decided to notarized the said promissory note.

Accordingly, according to the commission of the plaintiffs and the defendant, with respect to promissory notes (not stated on the date of payment) which amount to KRW 112,346,080, a notary public signed on January 14, 2015, the issuance date of which was set at KRW 22,00,000, the issuer, the plaintiffs, the defendant, the defendant, and the face value of which was set at KRW 112,346,080, as well as promissory notes (not stated on the date of payment).

E. The Plaintiff reselled each of the instant real estate to E, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 20 million with incentives on December 19, 2014, and issued promissory notes with face value of KRW 92,346,080 to the Plaintiffs for the payment of the remainder.

F. Sales contract or resale contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant for each real estate of this case.