1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is on the notarial deed No. 455 of October 2, 2008, No. 3208.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 2, 2008, the Plaintiff issued to D Co., Ltd. (after that, E Co., Ltd., F Co., Ltd., G Co., Ltd., and the Defendant were mutually changed in sequence. hereinafter “Defendant”) a promissory note with a face value of KRW 30,00,000,000 and at sight for the payment date (hereinafter “instant Promissory note”).

B. On the same day, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) commissioned a notary public to a law firm C to prepare a notarial deed stating that “if the Plaintiff delays the payment of the amount of the bill of this case to the holder of the bill of this case, he/she shall, without delay, recognize that there is no objection thereto even if he/she is subject to compulsory execution; (b) the said law firm attorney-at-law in charge of authentication of the said law firm prepared a notarial deed with the above contents

C. On June 30, 2017, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt by the District Court 2017Hadan527, and the decision to grant immunity was rendered on October 31, 2017 by the same court 2017Ma527, respectively, and the said decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on November 15, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”) provides that “The debtor shall be entitled to a bankruptcy claim regarding any property claim arising prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, and Article 566 of the same Act provides that “The debtor so exempted shall be exempted from all obligations to the bankruptcy creditors except dividends under the bankruptcy procedures: Provided, That no liability shall be exempted with respect to the following claims.” Thus, even if a bankruptcy claim is not entered in the list of creditors of the application for immunity, it shall be exempted from the effect of immunity unless it falls under any subparagraph of Article 566 of the same Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da3353, May 13, 2010). Examining the facts of recognition in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the defendant’s claim in the instant case shall be against the plaintiff: