1. The Defendant’s law firm as one of the Defendant’s law firms, No. 151, a promissory note, 2015, drawn up by the Plaintiff on April 27, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 27, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Nonparty C and Hanam-si D, setting a deposit of KRW 10,000,00, and KRW 7,200,000 for each of the six months following the rent, as KRW 160,00,00 for each of the instant plastic greenhouse (hereinafter “the instant plastic greenhouse”).

B. On February 27, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a sub-lease contract with the Defendant for KRW 1,00,000, and KRW 300,000 per month of the rent (hereinafter “sub-lease”) with respect to the instant vinyl. The Plaintiff agreed on the terms of the said special agreement that “In order to serve as a business cooperation partnership for sharing the business and selling the distribution goods in cooperation with the Plaintiff and the Defendant, instead of a simple lease contract,” the said contract is concluded.

C. The Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to pay KRW 10,000,000 as business deposit, and the Defendant prepared and paid a notarial deed.

Accordingly, on April 27, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entrusted the preparation of a notarial deed (10,000,000 won for face value, the issuer, the issuer, the Defendant, and the date of payment). As one of the law firms, a notarial deed of promissory notes (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the 2015 No. 151 was prepared.

However, the Defendant paid only KRW 5,400,000 to the Plaintiff after the instant notarial deed was prepared.

E. On July 17, 2015, the Defendant seized corporeal movables against the Plaintiff based on the instant notarial deed.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In light of the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, although the plaintiff entrusted the preparation of the notarial deed of this case to secure the return of the business deposit to the defendant, the amount actually paid by the defendant to the plaintiff is 5,400,000. The claim for the cause of the notarial deed of this case is 5,400.