1. A notary public D, which belongs to the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office, against the defendant's plaintiffs, written on July 30, 2014, 2014.

1. Presumed facts

A. On July 30, 2014, Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) borrowed KRW 400 million from the Defendant, and drafted an agreement with the effect that the interest shall be the statutory maximum interest rate (hereinafter “instant agreement”). Plaintiff B, the representative director of the Plaintiff Company, guaranteed the obligation to return the said borrowed amount.

B. The notary public D, who belongs to the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office, prepared a notarial deed as indicated in the Disposition (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) with regard to the above agreement on the same day.

C. The Defendant deposited KRW 50 million in the Plaintiff Company’s account on July 31, 2014 and KRW 150 million on August 7, 2014 to pay KRW 200 million in total. The Plaintiffs deposited KRW 160 million in the Defendant’s account on October 14, 2014 and KRW 40 million on January 7, 2015, respectively.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 4 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim

A. 1) The summary of the parties' assertion 1) The plaintiffs asserted that "the plaintiffs prepared an agreement to borrow KRW 400 million from the defendant, but the plaintiffs agreed to return the amount of KRW 200 million as interest when borrowing KRW 200 million from the defendant and making a written agreement as above. Since the amount actually borrowed from the defendant is KRW 200 million, the plaintiffs are obligated to pay KRW 200 million to the defendant." Accordingly, the defendant agreed to pay the defendant 4% of the contract amount to the defendant if the defendant would cause the plaintiff company to be subcontracted the construction work. The plaintiffs and the defendant agreed to pay the defendant 4 billion of the contract amount to the defendant if the defendant would cause the plaintiff company to be subcontracted the construction work. The plaintiffs and the defendant claimed that the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant was based on the execution of the notarial deed of this case by adding the above fee KRW 200 million and KRW 200 million to the plaintiff."