1. A deed prepared on May 3, 2012 by C by a notary public C belonging to the Seoul East District Prosecutors' Office against the plaintiff of the defendant.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 5-9 and the whole purport of the arguments.

On May 3, 2012, the Defendant: (a) as an agent of the obligee (Defendant) and the obligor (Plaintiff) at C’s office, commissioned the Plaintiff to make a notarial deed of promissory note in this case (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) to the effect that “the Plaintiff is an issuer, the Defendant, the Plaintiff, the face value of KRW 117,00,000, the issue date, May 3, 2012; and (b) if the payment of the promissory note in this case is delayed, it shall be recognized that there is no objection even if it is immediately subject to compulsory execution.” (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”); and (c) the notary public of the Seoul Dong District Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Seoul East District Public Prosecutor’s Office, as the above notarial deed No. 364, 2012.

The notarial deed of this case contains a letter of delegation in the name of the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "certificate of delegation of this case") and a certificate of the plaintiff's personal seal impression to delegate all authority concerning the commission of the notarial deed of this case

B. On May 29, 2012, the Defendant, based on the instant notarial deed, received a seizure and collection order (this Court 2012TTB No. 2012) against the Plaintiff’s claim against the Korea CTB Bank. Around that time, the Defendant collected KRW 44,396,692 from the Korea CTB Bank.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff stolen the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression that the Defendant had been in custody of the Plaintiff’s registered director D, and then forged the Promissory Notes in this case and the power of attorney, thereby making the Defendant prepare the instant notarial deed by arbitrarily affixing the Plaintiff’s corporate seal impression.”