1. Certificate No. 1096, 2010, drawn up by the Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff on April 23, 2012.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a person engaged in the sales and repair of agricultural machinery, and the plaintiff is an agricultural partnership for the purpose of management and incidental business of the concentrate business.

Article 1 (Loan and Lending of Money) Creditor on April 20, 2009 lent to debtor the amount of KRW 80 million and the debtor borrowed it.

Article 2 (Method of Performance) On July 25, 2012, the payment of KRW 50 million was decided to be made in installments, and KRW 30 million on December 25 of the same year.

Article 8 (Recognition and Recognition of Compulsory Execution) When an obligor fails to perform a pecuniary obligation under this contract, the obligor recognized that there is no objection even if compulsory execution has been conducted immediately.

Article 9 (Transfer for Security) The obligor transferred the ownership of the article listed in the [Attachment List] to the obligee by means of possession and alteration for the purpose of securing the performance of the above obligation, and the obligee acquired it by transfer.

B. On April 23, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) a notary public made at a law firm Seom, the obligee the Plaintiff, the debtor, the joint guarantor C and D; and (b) a notarial deed of a loan for security money and a loan for consumption (Evidence No. 1096, hereinafter referred to as “notarial deed of this case”) stating the following contents, etc. in the book of a law firm:

C. On September 6, 2016, the Defendant, based on the instant notarial deed, executed a seizure of the Plaintiff’s Bosch Rexroth (international) by using the claimed amount as KRW 20,70,000,000 as the Gwangju District Court Branch Branch of the Gwangju District Court (2016No73).

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

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. As indicated in the instant notarial deed, the Plaintiff did not borrow KRW 80 million from the Defendant on April 20, 2009, and did not prepare the instant notarial deed in order to secure the Defendant’s remainder of the payment for agricultural machinery and equipment, and the Defendant’s claim for repair of agricultural machinery and equipment, etc. that will incur in the future.

B. According to the trade account book prepared by the Defendant (No. 3, hereinafter “instant transaction account book”), the Defendant at the time of the preparation of the instant authentic deed.