1. The Defendant’s deed of preparation of C Office against the Plaintiff in the No. 607, No. 6012, a money loan agreement.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 25, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) borrowed KRW 100 million from the Defendant on April 24, 2013 with a maturity of KRW 300 million; and (b) made and issued a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement with the purport that there is no objection even if compulsory execution is immediately conducted, if a notary public delays the payment of the said loan from C office to the Defendant at the notary public C office in accordance with No. 607 on the same day; and (c) on the same day, the Plaintiff immediately made and issued a notarial deed to the effect that there is no objection.

B. Upon the lapse of the above period of payment, the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction of real estate under this court E and F (Dupl) with respect to the D apartment 101 Dong 1801-dong 1801 owned by the Plaintiff on the instant notarial deed. This court accepted the application on August 23, 2013 and rendered a decision to commence the auction on the said real estate.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s obligation to borrow KRW 100 million against the Defendant based on the notarial deed of this case is the Plaintiff’s claim, and G Co., Ltd. with the representative director (hereinafter “G”).

(2) 30 per cent (hereinafter referred to as the “instant shares”) of the issued shares

(2) Since the Defendant’s assertion that he received the shares of this case from the Plaintiff around December 21, 2012, it was true that the Defendant received the shares of this case from the Plaintiff on or around December 21, 2012, but it did not receive the payment in lieu of the above loan, there is still existence of the Plaintiff’s obligation based on the instant notarial deed.

B. In full view of the statements in the evidence Nos. 4 through 10 and the purport of the entire argument in the witness I’s testimony, the Plaintiff decided to transfer the instant shares to J in light of the fact that around 2012, the Plaintiff was invested in KRW 100 million from J and decided to transfer the instant shares to J. However, from the Defendant who was a shareholder of G and was to jointly operate the Plaintiff and the business.