1. Certificate drawn up on January 8, 2013 by a notary public against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) of the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) is a document drawn up on January 8, 2013.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the mother of D, and the defendant is a company established for the purpose of the wholesale business of alcoholic beverage sales.

B. On January 8, 2013, the Defendant’s employee E commissioned a law firm as an agent of an addressee and an issuer to prepare a notarial deed on a promissory note with the name of “the amount of KRW 240 million in face value, the payee, the issuer, the Plaintiff, and D, the date of issuance, January 8, 2013, and the date of payment,” in the capacity of an addressee and an issuer (hereinafter “instant promissory note”).

Accordingly, the notary public prepared the No. 390 of the No. 2013 No. 390 of the No. 2013 No. 301 of the No. 2013 No. 301 of the No. 2013.

The instant notarial deed contains a letter of delegation on which the Plaintiff’s seal imprint affixed and a certificate of personal seal impression issued by the Plaintiff as of October 25, 2012.

C. On November 22, 2017, the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction on real estate F apartment G with the title of execution for the instant notarial deed as the title of execution, and on November 23, 2017, the procedure for compulsory auction on real estate was commenced as Suwon District Court Ansan Branch H on November 23, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 5, Eul evidence 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted 1 by the parties, while receiving the monthly revenue of KRW 10,000,000,000 from ChocarD running an entertainment tavern, invested approximately KRW 1.5 billion, and only formally registered the Plaintiff as an joint proprietor of the said entertainment tavern, to prevent D from disposing of entertainment tavern at will.

On October 2012, the Plaintiff could no longer operate the business if the credit amount is paid from D to the alcoholic beverage supplier. Therefore, upon the request of D, the Plaintiff lent KRW 200 million to D upon the request of D, and issued the Plaintiff’s seal impression and a certificate of personal seal.