1. The document drawn up on December 31, 2012 against the Defendant’s joint office of the C notary public against the Plaintiff is based on a notarial deed No. 685, 2012.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is a credit service provider that completed registration of credit business under the trade name “D” on November 9, 2007.

B. The Plaintiff, around December 6, 2012, borrowed money from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant receipt”) and issued a receipt for KRW 5,500,000,00 (hereinafter “the instant receipt”), as well as a loan receipt for KRW 5,50,000, and interest for KRW 3% per month (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”), respectively, to the Defendant.

C. Since then, for the purpose of securing the above loans, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note with the Defendant as the Defendant, the face value of KRW 20,000,000, the issue date of which was December 6, 2012, the payment date was at sight, and the place of payment at the place of payment at the place of payment, respectively. On December 31, 2012 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, a notarial deed with respect to the said promissory note as C notary Joint Office No. 685 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

As above, the Plaintiff repaid to the Defendant KRW 750,00 in total over three occasions by means of remitting KRW 250,000 on January 31, 2013, and KRW 250,000 on February 28, 2013 to Nonparty E during a period between February 28, 2013 and February 28, 2013.

E. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Defendant applied for a collection order for the seizure and collection of the claim amounting to KRW 20,000,000 with the title of execution and the amount of the claim amount as KRW 20,000. On June 13, 2014, the Defendant issued a ruling on the seizure and collection order of the claim (hereinafter “the collection order of this case”).

F. Meanwhile, at the time the Plaintiff borrowed money from the Defendant, the interest of credit service providers under the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users (hereinafter “Credit Business Act”) could not exceed 39% per annum.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. A summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion of the cause of the claim 1.