1. The Plaintiff’s notary public against the Defendant on January 4, 2012 No. 37, 2012.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff became aware of C as the Plaintiff’s children’s fences and became aware of C, which is a bond company, and the Defendant is the subject of C.

B. On January 4, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s agent D entrusted a notary public with the preparation of a notarial deed on a loan instrument, stating that “the Plaintiff shall rent KRW 1.1 million from the Defendant to the end of January 31, 2012, with the interest rate of KRW 200,000,000,000 from the Defendant,” and accordingly, a notary public drafted a notarial deed on a loan instrument (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the purport that “if a monetary obligation under this contract is not performed, it shall be acknowledged that there is no objection to compulsory execution immediately.”

C. On October 16, 2012, the Defendant applied for the attachment and collection order of the Plaintiff’s wage claim against Sejong Special Self-Governing City as the Daejeon District Court 2012TTT10359 on October 16, 2012. On July 31, 2012, the said court rendered a decision to accept the claim.

Meanwhile, from August 25, 2009 to July 14, 2012, C made a false statement to the effect that, from around August 25, 2009 to July 14, 2012, C would collect the F’s unrefied claim by her husband from the Plaintiff and E, thereby acquiring KRW 325 million in total from the Plaintiff and E.

‘The Cheongju District Court 2013Ma1124 was prosecuted for fraud and embezzlement due to criminal facts such as crime, and was sentenced to three years of imprisonment on May 2, 2014, and the above judgment became final and conclusive after the judgment.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-2, 2, 3, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The following circumstances are revealed by adding the above facts of recognition and the purport of the entire argument as to the cause of the claim: (i) the Defendant only lent the name of “C” and issued a certificate of seal impression; and (ii) the preparation of the authentic deed of this case and its related claims are entirely known.