1. The defendant's joint office against the plaintiff in 2008 No. 359 of money loan agreement is authentic.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”) whose representative director was the Plaintiff had the Defendant liable for the payment of the goods of KRW 22,520,000 to the Defendant operating the company selling the sanitary instruments, etc. under the trade name of “E”. On February 24, 2005, the Plaintiff drafted a authentic deed of promissory notes of KRW 22,520,000 in face value to the Defendant with respect to the payment of the above obligation.

B. On June 4, 2008, the Defendant followed the execution procedure for the seizure of corporeal movables against the Plaintiff by using the said notarial deed as an executive title.

C. On July 7, 2008, the Defendant received KRW 1,000,000 from the Plaintiff as partial repayment, and on August 4, 2008, from the Plaintiff’s joint office in Cnotarial 2008, the Defendant drafted a notarial deed of money loan loan agreement on December 30, 208 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the obligee, the obligor, the Plaintiff, the borrower, the loan money borrowed amount of KRW 21,520,00,000, and released the seizure of the said corporeal movables.

On November 1, 2017, the Defendant obtained a decision to commence the compulsory sale of real estate against the Plaintiff on November 1, 2017 with the title of execution of the instant authentic deed as the title.

E. On November 23, 2017, the Defendant received a payment order of KRW 21,520,000 against the Plaintiff (U.S. District Court Branch 2017Da10124) (the said payment order was finalized on December 27, 2017) with the claim amount of KRW 21,520,00.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), Eul 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. It seems that the plaintiff's preparation of the notarial deed of this case to the defendant is made for the repayment of the price for the goods to the defendant by D or as a security for the obligation. In such a case, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's claim against the plaintiff based on the notarial deed of this case has taken the short-term three years extinctive prescription under Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act.

Even if the defendant asserts, the plaintiff is a plaintiff through the notarial deed of this case.