1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, No. 398, 2015, drafted by Daejeon General Law Firm, March 9, 2015.

Facts of recognition

C and D shall take office as the co-representative on February 16, 2015 and their registration was completed, and E shall take office as the co-representative on February 26, 2015 and completed registration on March 6, 2015.

On March 9, 2015, a notary public prepared the No. 398 No. 398 of Daejeon General Law Firm (hereinafter referred to as the "notarial deed of this case") in March 9, 2015 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

On March 1, 2015, the Defendant lent KRW 610 million to the Plaintiff on March 1, 2015 as due date for reimbursement of KRW 310 million ( KRW 300 million) and March 1, 2017 ( KRW 310 million). D and F provide that joint and several guarantee for the above loan obligation shall be provided and that if the above contract is not performed, it shall be immediately enforced. However, the Plaintiff’s agent “B Joint Representative Director D” was written, and the Plaintiff’s representative director’s seal impression was affixed.

On November 26, 2015, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order (Seoul District Court Decision 2015TTY 2015TY 2622) on the Plaintiff’s claim to return the deposit money and the amount deposited for the collection of the restoration expenses to the Go Chang-gun, and on August 24, 2016, on the basis of the instant notarial deed, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order (No. 2016TY 1701) on the Plaintiff’s claim to return the deposit money and the amount deposited for the collection of the notarial deed in relation to the Plaintiff’s claim to return the deposit money and the restoration expenses to the Korea Go Chang-gun.

[Ground of recognition] In full view of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the facts of recognition of the purport of the whole pleadings, and each of the above evidence Nos. 4 through 8, and the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the whole purport of the pleadings, the notarial deed of this case constitutes an act of unauthorized Representation, which was prepared by Eul, which was one of the joint representative directors of the plaintiff, arbitrarily forged without the consent of Eul or E, and constitutes an act of unauthorized Representation. The claims and obligations arising from the issuance of the notarial deed of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant.