1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, No. 525, 2010, No. 2010, Oct. 22, 2010.

1. Basic facts

A. From around 2005, the Plaintiff worked as female employees from “C” and “D,” which are sexual traffic business establishments located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, and worked as female employees at “E”, which is a sexual traffic business establishment in around 2010, for at least five days a week including Saturdays, and on the condition that it will engage in sexual traffic, the Plaintiff received the prepaid payment of KRW 16 million (hereinafter “the instant prepaid payment”).

On the other hand, the above E is located underground, and the hotel is located on the upper floor of the same building, and female employees, including the plaintiff, worked at 7 p.m. and drink and drink at 7 p.m., they worked at the hotel of the above floor of the building, and they worked at 3-4 p.m. of the new wall.

B. The Defendant refers to the act of doing illegal taxi business against female employees of entertainment establishments using so-called call car or sirens, etc. to receive more than a few times the basic taxi rate from female employees of entertainment establishments, etc., and to the destination. The basic taxi rate is KRW 10,000 in the case of Seoul Gangnam-gu, KRW 10,000 in the case of Seoul, KRW 2-50,000 in the case of other Seoul areas, and KRW 10,000 in the case of Seoul metropolitan areas.

B while engaging in the bond business, the plaintiff was introduced from the beauty room employees and started to use the defendant's call taxi from August 2010.

C. On October 22, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entrusted the Plaintiff with the preparation of a notarial deed on April 22, 2011 that the Plaintiff borrowed five million won from the Defendant from the Defendant to the Law Firm Law Firm, setting a maturity of 30% per annum, and requested the said Law Firm to prepare a notarial deed on money loan contracts to the effect that, under Article 525 of the 2010 deed, the Plaintiff is immediately subject to compulsory execution if the Plaintiff fails to perform the said obligation, he/she would be aware of the objection even if he/she is immediately subject to compulsory execution (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”). The Defendant deducted the prior interest and transferred the Plaintiff KRW 290,000 on October 22, 2010 and KRW 1833,00 on May 25, 201.

In this case, "the above money" is the case.