1. Certificates No. 171, 2017, signed by Law Firm F, May 26, 2017 by the Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiffs.

1. The facts without dispute are as of May 26, 2017 between the Defendant (creditor) and the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (debtor A), Plaintiff B, C, and D (each joint and several sureties), and the notary public of May 26, 2017, stating, “the creditor has lent KRW 4.5 billion to the debtor on May 26, 2017 and borrowed it, and the debtor has borrowed it and the debtor has borrowed it in a lump sum until May 27, 2017. If the debtor has delayed the repayment of the principal, the notary public, at the rate of 25% per annum, paid damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum.”

2. Claims on both sides;

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion (i.e., the instant investment contract and a monetary loan agreement constitute invalid legal act because the lender gains unjust benefits by taking advantage of his superior position, and the borrower bears excessive consideration, etc.

B. On May 24, 2017, the Plaintiff Company prepared an investment contract with the Defendant and received KRW 400 million from the account as an agent for the business of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Nowon-gu H District Housing Association. On May 26, 2017, the Plaintiff Company drafted an authentic deed of a monetary loan agreement as mentioned above.

However, the substance of an investment contract is a monetary loan contract.

Since then, the Plaintiff Company repaid KRW 381,986,683 on December 22, 2017, including KRW 355,585,34 on August 31, 2017, KRW 26,401,334, and KRW 355,585,349 on December 22, 2017, and thus, the Plaintiff Company requested non-permission of compulsory execution based on a notarized deed exceeding the scope of the Interest Limitation Act.

B. The Defendant’s assertion is an investment contract, not a monetary loan contract, and the investment amount is KRW 700 million, not a cause of 400 million.

3. Determination

A. The content of the instant monetary loan agreement and the instant monetary loan agreement as the nature of a monetary loan agreement is that the Plaintiff Company borrowed 4.5 billion won from the Defendant on May 26, 2017 and temporarily repaid 4.5 billion won on May 27, 2017, and that the Plaintiff B, C, and D stand a joint and several surety for the debt borrowed.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff Company projects the H District Housing Association of approximately 2,00 households in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu.