1. No. 39, 2016, a notary public against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is a law firm drafted document No. 39.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the construction business, etc., the Defendant is a company that runs the wholesale and retail business of aggregate, and D is a person who is in a de facto marital relationship with E, the representative director of the Plaintiff.

B. From December 14, 2015 to December 21, 2015, the Defendant lent the sum of KRW 48 million to D to the Plaintiff’s account under the Plaintiff’s name; and KRW 8 million to E; and D transferred all of them to F through each of the above accounts.

C. From January 22, 2016 to June 26, 2016, the Defendant lent the said money to the account in the name of the Plaintiff while lending KRW 200 million to D and F, and D immediately remitted the money received from the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff to F’s account or to the account designated by F.

On the other hand, on January 27, 2016, D submitted to D a power of attorney to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall delegate D the authority of D to request D to prepare a notarial deed concerning the Defendant’s monetary loan contract” (hereinafter “the power of attorney of this case”). On the same day, D drafted the notarial deed of this case as the Plaintiff’s agent qualification, stating that “the Defendant is jointly and severally liable on January 27, 2016, lent KRW 250 million to the Plaintiff and F without interest, and the due date shall be March 30, 2016, and the interest rate for delay shall be 20% per annum, and in the event of nonperformance, the interest rate for delay shall be 20% per annum, and in the event of the Defendant’s compulsory execution, D prepared the notarial deed of this case as the Plaintiff’s agent.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1's evidence, Eul 1's evidence (including a paper number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The plaintiff asserts that the above notarial deed has no effect as an executive title since it was not delegated to D with the right to prepare the notarial deed of this case.

As to this, the defendant is at the time of preparing the notarial deed of this case.