1. The Defendant’s law firm in 2013, drawn up on April 1, 2013, and entered into a monetary loan agreement (No. 99) against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. B (hereinafter “B”) received KRW 300 million from the Defendant on April 1, 2013, and agreed to pay KRW 600 million to the Defendant by June 3, 2013 (hereinafter “instant agreement”), and at the time, the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to the Defendant under the said agreement.

In this regard, on April 1, 2013, B and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “YIP”) borrowed KRW 600 million from the Defendant on June 3, 2013, 2013, B borrowed from the Defendant on a non-interest rate of KRW 30% per annum, and damages for delay as 30% per annum, respectively. The Plaintiff and APPPP jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligations of B, and, if the Plaintiff fails to perform such monetary obligations, B, A, YIPPP and the Plaintiff, a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement (No. 99, 2013, hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) that recognizes that there is no objection even if compulsory execution is conducted.

B. However, although B received KRW 300 million from the Defendant on April 1, 2013 pursuant to the instant agreement, on June 3, 2013, the Defendant did not pay KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant on the basis of the instant notarial deed, and the Defendant applied for the seizure and collection order of the claim amounting to the amount of the claim amount out of the respective deposit claims against the Plaintiff, the garnishee, the National Bank, the New Bank, and the Plaintiff’s seizure claim against the said garnishee (Seoul Central District Court 2013TTT25688), and the said court issued the seizure and collection order of the same content as of August 12, 2013.

C. On August 29, 2013, the Plaintiff (a total of KRW 337,233,000,000 and the amount equivalent to KRW 37,23,000 per annum from April 1, 2013 to August 29, 2013, by making the Defendant’s refusal to receive the deposited amount under Article 487 of the Civil Act, Article 487 of the Civil Act, and the fact of the cause of deposit as the Defendant’s refusal to receive the deposited amount).