1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff No. 92, 2017, drafted by D on April 13, 2017 by D, a notary public against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the husband of F, who was the representative director of E Company, and the Defendant was the employee of E Company, and the Defendant was the same as F Company B, who actually operated E Company, was closed on October 10, 2016.

B. On April 2017, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the E Co., Ltd. seeking payment of the unpaid wages and retirement allowances of KRW 26 million in the Suwon District Court, and received a decision of performance recommendation on April 20, 2017.

C. B representing the Plaintiff: (a) around April 13, 2017, between the Defendant and the Plaintiff; and (b) from May 13, 2017, the same year between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

9. By the 13th day of each month, a notary public, who is obliged to pay a total of KRW 10 million,000,000 per month, prepared a notarial deed under a quasi-loan loan agreement No. 92 of 2017 (hereinafter “notarial deed No. 92”) and a notary public who is obliged to pay KRW 20 million to the Defendant by September 13, 2017, No. 93 of 2017, No. 93 of 2017, No. 2017, No. 93 (hereinafter “notarial deed”).

(hereinafter above notarial deeds are collectively referred to as “instant notarial deeds”). D.

On the other hand, on October 14, 2016, the Defendant received KRW 5,328,727, out of the amount deposited by Nonparty G on behalf of E Co., Ltd. according to a decision to determine the amount of litigation costs with the E Co., Ltd. (Korean Government District Court 2015Kao-523) on behalf of E Co., Ltd. on behalf of E Co., Ltd. on behalf of the Defendant. On April 13, 2017, the Defendant received KRW 45 million from Ba or H around April 13, 2017. On the same day, the Plaintiff received KRW 4 million from the I Co., Ltd., which

E. On July 2017, the Defendant applied for a substitute payment to the Central and Medium Local Employment and Labor Agency in the Republic of Korea, and received a total of KRW 13.8 million around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3-2, evidence 6-1 to 9, each entry of Eul evidence 1 to 4, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant has unpaid wages against E Co., Ltd.