1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is a monetary loan agreement No. 852 of the deed 2012 drawn up by the mother law firm.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2010, the Plaintiff intended to borrow operating funds from the Defendant who is operating an order siren supplier in order to take over and operate the order siren. On May 15, 2010, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 300 million from the Defendant on a yearly interest rate of 18% per annum, due date of payment on September 15, 2012 (hereinafter “instant monetary loan agreement”), and the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with goods, such as Ansan business.

B. From June 15, 2010 to February 15, 2011, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 40.5 million to the Defendant (=30 million per annum x 15% per annum x 1/12 x 9 months). On July 18, 2012, the Plaintiff paid an additional KRW 60 million to the Defendant.

C. On August 20, 2012, the Defendant drafted and implemented the following agreements to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant agreement”), and the Plaintiff paid KRW 100 million to the Defendant on the same day.

On the condition that the Plaintiff and the Defendant perform the monetary borrowed contract, I confirm that KRW 160 million is paid in cash, KRW 70 million as the site for the petition, and that the remainder of KRW 115 million remains as the loan (in five years) with the birthee A and conclude the loan (in five years).

I confirm and confirm that there is no balance other than KRW 115 million with Dong Jae-in, five years later, and there is no objection. D.

On the other hand, on September 12, 2012, the Defendant entrusted the Plaintiff’s agent as a creditor to prepare a notarial deed No. 852, No. 852, 2012, in which a notary public, such as the monetary loan agreement of this case, was drafted.

(hereinafter referred to as the “notarial deed of this case”). [Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion was exempted from the defendant's obligation under the agreement of this case, and the defendant does not bear any obligation under the monetary loan contract of this case, and pursuant to the agreement of this case, the plaintiff did not bear any obligation under the monetary loan of this case.