1. Certificates drawn up by the Defendant’s law firm’s sampling against the Plaintiff on July 26, 2012, with executive force No. 557 of 2012.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 26, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant had a law firm sample prepare the instant notarial deed containing the following contents:

Article 1 (Purpose) The Defendant lent KRW 30,000,000 to B on July 10, 2012, and B borrowed this.

Article 2 (Period and Method of Payment) The repayment shall be made in twenty installments each month from September 2012 to April 2014, respectively.

Article 5 (Amount of Delayed Damages) (B) If the repayment of principal or interest is delayed, damages for delay shall be paid at the rate of 25 percent per annum on the delayed principal or interest.

Article 8 (Joint Guarantee)

1. The plaintiff guaranteed B's obligations under this contract and agreed to perform B's obligations jointly and severally with B.

2. The maximum amount of the Plaintiff’s guaranteed liability is KRW 30,000,000.

Article 9 (Recognition and Recognition of Compulsory Execution) B and when the plaintiff has failed to discharge his pecuniary obligation under this contract, the plaintiff recognized and recognized that there is no objection even if compulsory execution has been effected immediately.

B. The Defendant received KRW 1,500,000,000, out of the above principal of the loan, on or before the 10th day of the pertinent month, respectively, after receiving the payment of KRW 1,50,000 on January 16, 2013, and KRW 4,942,000 on October 19, 201, and KRW 10,000 on September 22, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that, under the name of “C”, “C”, the Plaintiff borrowed money from the Defendant as a facility cost when he was supplied alcoholic beverages from the Defendant, and that D took over the business of “C” from “C” in February 2013 and took over the said debt from “C” with the Defendant’s consent, thereby extinguishing the Plaintiff’s guarantee obligation.

However, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that D consented to the discharge of the above loan obligation from B. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

(b) the balance of the loan obligations;