1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is a law firm’s perpetrator on May 30, 2013, and a promissory note No. 1299 on May 30, 2013.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2012, the Plaintiff’s construction work for construction of a Moel or officetel (i) the construction work for construction of a Moel or officetel on a parcel other than the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “new construction work for the instant Moel or officetel”).

2) The head of mobilization construction (main) suspended the construction of the instant Moel and officetel at the time of completion of the construction of the base-breaking project.

B. On October 25, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into the first contract between the Plaintiff and D (hereinafter “instant first contract”). On October 25, 2012, the Plaintiff awarded a contract for the instant construction of the instant apartment (including additional tax) to D with the construction cost of KRW 3,105,300,00 (including additional tax) for the instant construction of the instant apartment (hereinafter “the instant first contract”).

(2) The Plaintiff and D set up the standard contract form for each private construction project (Evidence A No. 7-1 and 2) are written on KRW 2,823,00,000 (the part for the new construction project of the telecom) and KRW 1,07,00,000 (the part for the new construction project of the officetel) that do not include value added tax. (2) The Plaintiff and D, while entering into the contract form for the first construction project of the instant case, calculated the construction cost for the part for the construction project completed before the mobilization construction (the owner) at KRW 300,00,000 and decided to pay that amount in advance for the construction cost of the instant first construction project.

C. On April 20, 2013, D entered into the first subcontract between D and the Defendant, D subcontracted the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior decoration construction among the construction of the instant apartment (including additional tax) to the Defendant at KRW 693,000,000 (including additional tax) for the construction cost. Of the construction of the instant officetel, D subcontracted to the Defendant at KRW 253,000,000 (including additional tax) for the construction cost (hereinafter “the first subcontract”).

(2) On April 24, 2013, the Defendant received KRW 55,00,000 as down payment, and received KRW 88,00,000 as part of the construction cost on June 7, 2013, and received KRW 143,00,000 as the construction cost related to the first subcontract.