1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, No. 964, 2013, drawn up by C on April 5, 2013 by Law Firm C.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) is a company established on July 28, 201 for the purpose of manufacturing, selling, etc. of inorganic minerals (coal).

The plaintiff is the majority shareholder of the above company, and the defendant served as an auditor of the above company from July 28, 201 to March 27, 2014.

B. On April 5, 2013, the Defendant and a notary public drafted the fairness certificate of monetary consumption lending and lending contract (hereinafter “the fairness certificate of this case”) with the following content as the Defendant and the notary public No. 964, 2013, and at the time, the Plaintiff guaranteed D’s debt owed to the Defendant based on the instant fairness certificate.

Article 1 (Purpose) The Defendant lent KRW 480 million to D on April 5, 2013, and D borrowed this.

Article 2 (Period and Method of Repayment) The repayment deadline shall be July 31, 2013.

When Article 5 (Amount of Delayed Damages) D delays the repayment of principal or interest, the late principal or interest shall be paid to the defendant at the rate of 20% per annum for the delayed principal or interest.

Article 8 (Joint and Several sureties)

1. The Plaintiff guaranteed D’s obligations under this Agreement, and agreed to perform its obligations jointly and severally with D.

2. The maximum amount of the Plaintiff’s debt guarantee is KRW 60 million.

3. The period of the surety obligation shall be ten years from the date of borrowing.

Article 9 (Failure of Compulsory Execution) D and when the plaintiff fails to perform his/her monetary obligation under this contract, he/she was immediately subject to compulsory execution but did not raise any objection.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The defendant's loan claims against D under the process certificate of this case are premised on the defendant's payment of KRW 480 million to D as the company's operating expenses. D did not borrow KRW 480 million from the defendant, and there is no fact that the defendant paid KRW 480 million to D as operating expenses.

Therefore, D'.