1. Certificate No. 1137, 2013, dated September 9, 2013, issued by the defendant to the plaintiffs as notary public office D office against the plaintiffs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Plaintiff A operated a manufacturing company with the trade name “F” in Busan Seo-gu (the actual manager: Plaintiff B, the husband of Plaintiff A) from January 2012 to August 2013, 2013; and Plaintiff A had been supplied with goods from the Defendant around August 31, 2013, and had not been paid KRW 102,925,79.

B. On September 9, 2013, at the end, the Plaintiffs consulted with the Defendant on the issue of the price of the goods unpaid, the notarial deed of debt repayment contract (a quasi-loan agreement) concluded between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant with the effect that “The notarial deed of this case (hereinafter referred to as “notarial deed of this case”) was written with the content that “the Plaintiff B, the Defendant, the Plaintiff A, the joint and several surety, the amount of the Plaintiff B, the amount of the debt, KRW 70 million, the due date for payment, March 31, 2014; and that if the Plaintiffs fail to perform the above monetary obligation, the notarial deed of this case shall be deemed to have no objection even if compulsory execution is performed.”

In addition, on the same day between the plaintiffs and the defendant, a letter stating that "if the plaintiff intended to pay KRW 70 million by the notarial deed of this case until March 31, 2014, if the repayment date exceeds the due date, the plaintiff will pay the full amount of KRW 102,925,79 for the goods originally borne by the defendant" (hereinafter referred to as "each letter of this case").

C. After the creation of the instant notarial deed and a written statement, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff A seeking payment of KRW 104,040,851 of the price for the goods at 2013Gahap16407, Sept. 26, 2013, and received a decision of acceptance from the said court on Sept. 30, 2013 by filing an application for provisional seizure of the right to claim ownership transfer registration with this court 2013Kahap126, Sept. 30, 2013.

On the other hand, on December 6, 2013, the Defendant withdrawn the lawsuit claiming the price of the goods.

Plaintiff

A repaid 70 million won to the Defendant on March 28, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 4, 6, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff A’s notarial deed and the notarial deed of this case.