1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff entered into a loan for consumption of money by means of transfer, No. 782, 201, a law firm C Deed.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s husband D borrowed money from the Defendant over several occasions in the name of its operating fund, etc. while operating the “E-North Port Points” located in Yeongdeungpo-si, where the Plaintiff was represented by the Plaintiff.

(2) On July 6, 201, D, upon the Defendant’s request for the repayment of the above loan, made up a notarial deed of monetary loan contract for security by means of transfer for security (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”), stating that “D, on April 1, 201, borrowed KRW 150 million from the Defendant as the maturity date for payment, determined on April 1, 201, and borrowed from the Defendant on April 1, 2016, and if D fails to perform the above monetary obligation, it is recognized that there is no objection even if it is immediately subject to compulsory execution.”

(3) Although the Plaintiff did not appear in the above law firm at the time, the Plaintiff appears in the above law firm and signed and sealed the letter of commission for the preparation of notarial deeds (hereinafter “instant letter of commission for notarial deeds”) and the notarial deeds of this case.

B. The Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against D, etc. on suspicion of forging private documents.

D On July 6, 2011, the following facts were found to have been convicted on July 6, 201: (a) on the charge of forging a private document, uttering of a private investigation document, forgery of a private signature, and uttering of a private signature and an exercise of a private signature, that “A person without the name of D and a person without the name of D entered or signed the name of the plaintiff in the instant request for notarial deed and the instant notarial deed, and D affixed the Plaintiff’s seal, thereby forging and exercising the Plaintiff’s signature under the name of the Plaintiff; (b) was sentenced to the judgment of conviction on July 6, 2018 [limited to the part related to the consolidation of the case.]

On the other hand, in the above criminal case, L is also prosecuted on the premise that the person who entered the plaintiff's name or signed was the defendant's wife at the time.