1. Nonparty C’s face value of KRW 56,00,000,000 for the Defendant on February 24, 2010, the payee, the place of issuance, and the place of payment.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not dispute each other; (b) the entry of No. 2 through No. 4; and (c) the fact inquiry and the result of the submission order by this court; and (d) the purport of

According to the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gahap12172, the Plaintiff has claims equivalent to the amount calculated by applying the ratio of 5% per annum from March 6, 2012 to September 21, 2012, and 20% per annum from September 22, 2012 to the date of full payment. According to the above judgment, 30 million won among the above claims was established around December 28, 2006, and its maturity arrived at least around February 2008, and the remainder of 10 million won came at around August 20, 2008.

B. C issued a promissory note with a face value of 56,00,000 won at face value on February 24, 2010, the Defendant, the place of issuance, the place of payment, and the place of payment, each of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the place of payment, and the place of payment (hereinafter “the Promissory note of this case”) to the Defendant, who is his/her own partner, and (2) the Daejeon District Court issued the Daejeon District Court on July 12, 2010 on the ground of the contract (hereinafter “instant collateral security agreement”) signed on July 12, 2010 with respect to the 3,734 square meters at face-to-face (hereinafter “instant collateral security agreement”). On July 13, 2010, the Daejeon District Court issued the registration office of establishment of a collateral security (hereinafter “registration of this case”) with the Defendant as the Defendant for a right to collateral security (hereinafter “registration of this case”).

2. The judgment of the Defendant on this safety defense is written in the Seoul Central District Court case No. 2013da90122, the Plaintiff’s written opinion (Evidence No. 2) submitted by Nonparty C on August 23, 2013, and the contents of the instant promissory note and the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage (the cause date, the party, the amount of the claim, etc.) are all networked, and the Plaintiff was aware of the excess of the obligation of Nonparty at least around that time.