1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is based on the notarial deed of Promissory Notes No. 145 of C 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 100 million from the Defendant on May 30, 201 and decided to pay the Defendant by March 1, 2013.

“As of May 30, 201, I prepared and awarded a loan certificate as of May 30, 201, stating that “I will borrow KRW 100 million from March 15, 201, and pay it until March 30, 2013,” and that “I will pay it by March 15, 2012.”

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the loans in this case”). B.

On December 19, 2013, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a promissory note amounting to KRW 200 million on December 19, 2013, and on September 30, 2014, and issued a promissory note amounting to KRW 200 million as a notary public’s No. 137 of the 2013 Deed No. 137 of the 2013 Deed (hereinafter “No. 1 Deed”).

C. On May 15, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note with the issue date on May 15, 2014, and the due date on May 19, 2014, and the amount of KRW 50 million to the Defendant, and issued a notarized deed No. 145 of the Promissory Notes No. 145 (hereinafter “notarial deed No. 2 of this case”).

On June 2, 2017, the Defendant received each claim attachment and collection order as to the deposit claims owned by the Plaintiff against the third parties, such as E, etc. on the basis of the No. 2 notarial Deed No. 2017 of this case and the No. 1 notarial Deed No. 2017 of this case on June 14, 2017, as to the deposit claims owned by the Plaintiff against the third parties, such as E, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. At the time when the Plaintiff asserted that he had been employed as the director of the Fgu Office Construction Division, the dispute between the Defendant and G, who is a civil petitioner, was brought to arbitration. Since the Defendant refused to give false testimony to the Plaintiff in the lawsuit between the Defendant and G, the Defendant decided to give testimony as desired by the Defendant, such as making one-person demonstration before the Plaintiff’s place of work prior to the examination for promotion, and the Defendant did not have any monetary liability against the Defendant.