1. The defendant's notary public C belonging to the original district public prosecutor's office against the plaintiff was prepared on September 17, 2014, No. 444.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 1, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 40 million in total to the Defendant from October 1, 2014 to January 1, 2018 (hereinafter “instant agreement”) (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

(No agreement on interest and delay damages). (b)

In accordance with the instant agreement, the original Defendant prepared, on September 17, 2014, a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) from the notary public C office belonging to the original District Prosecutors’ Office to the C office belonging to the original District Prosecutors’ Office on September 17, 2014, as the document No. 444 of 2014.

In addition, the Plaintiff recognized compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 2 and the purport of the whole argument

2. Summary of the plaintiff's ground of claim

A. On March 2009, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 22,000,000 from the Defendant as non-interest.

Since April 8, 2011, to August 11, 2014, the Plaintiff repaid total of KRW 20,590,000 as shown in attached Table (1).

B. However, on September 17, 2014, the Defendant, on the part of the Plaintiff, committed the instant notarial deed with the belief of the Defendant that the Plaintiff was liable to pay interest, and prepared the said notarial deed in the amount of KRW 40 million on the part of the Plaintiff, stating that “The money received up to the payment is less than the interest of KRW 2 per month.” The notarial deed as to the principal must be prepared.”

C. After the preparation of the instant notarial deed, the Plaintiff repaid KRW 23,120,00 from April 20, 2015 to December 5, 2017, as shown in attached Table (2).

The first loan of KRW 22,00,00 did not have any interest agreement on KRW 20,590,000, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 20,590,000 more than 37 times. However, at the time of the preparation of the instant authentic deed, the Plaintiff believed the Defendant’s oral statement that “When he borrows money, he must naturally pay interest and bear the interest of two parts of the law,” due to the lack of interest on the law and experience.”

E. Therefore, the instant agreement is important.