1. As to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) A by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

(a) The notary public’s law office shall be the law firm’s rate and total law office;

1. The following facts may be acknowledged by taking into account each description of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 3-1 and 2 (the fact signed by the plaintiff B is not a dispute between the parties, and each authenticity is recognized.).

Plaintiff

A. From 206 to December 29, 2008, through monetary transactions borrowing money from the Defendant, A issued a promissory note of KRW 40,00,00 to the Defendant on the same day, and on the same day, a notary public made and issued a notarial deed under No. 761 (hereinafter “first promissory note”) with respect to the said promissory note at the interest rate general law office in 2008. B. On November 29, 2009, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a seizure and collection order of KRW 209,1455 against the Plaintiff’s non-party to the National Bank, Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., and seven banks, and the said court issued a notarial deed of KRW 10,000,00 to the Defendant on the notarial deed of KRW 20,000,000, and the said court issued the notarial deed of KRW 30,000 to the Defendant on the 316,2016, respectively.

And on March 25, 2010.