1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff at Daejeon General Law Firm No. 2633.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a medical corporation that operates the “D Hospital” in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Yandong-si C.

B. On November 4, 2013, by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, a notary public signed a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with the following content as at No. 2633 of the Daejeon General Law Firm.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant authentic deed”). - On October 26, 2013, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 250,000 from the Defendant.

- The maturity of the borrowed amount was set on October 25, 2015.

- The interest rate was set at 30% per annum and was paid 26th day of each month.

- E guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation under this Agreement and agreed to jointly and severally with the Plaintiff to perform the obligation.

- When the plaintiff and E fail to perform their obligations under this contract, they recognized and recognized that there is no objection even if they are subject to compulsory execution.

C. On November 4, 2013, the Defendant transferred KRW 200,000,00 to the Plaintiff’s account under the name of the Plaintiff, KRW 38,023,790 on the following day, and KRW 238,023,790 on the following day.

On April 21, 2016, based on the No. 205 through 209, No. 301 through 309, No. 401, 403 through 409, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction on the basis of the No. 205 through 209, 301 through 309, and No. 401, 403 through 409, the Defendant rendered a compulsory auction on the said real estate on April 22, 201.

(1) Each entry of Gap's 1 through 6, and Eul's 1 (including various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. As indicated below, the Plaintiff did not bear the obligation to borrow money against the Defendant, so compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case shall not be permitted.

1) The Plaintiff did not have entered into a monetary loan agreement with the Defendant. The borrowing of KRW 238,023,790 from the Defendant is H where the Plaintiff was the actual operator of the Plaintiff. 2) The Plaintiff is between the Defendant and the Defendant.