1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is the executory power of 2012, No. 4277.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 28, 2012, the Plaintiff’s wife drafted a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the following content.

On September 28, 2012, the creditor of Article 1 of the No. 4277 No. 427 of the No. 2012 No. 427 lent money to the debtor and the debtor borrowed this.

Article 2 The full repayment shall be made by December 31, 2015.

Article 3 Interest shall be paid at 10% per annum on the last day of each month.

Article 9. When the debtor and the joint guarantor fail to perform the monetary obligation under this contract, they immediately recognized that there is no objection even if compulsory execution is enforced.

Creditor B (Defendant) A (Plaintiff) joint and several sureties C) joint and several sureties who is an agent of debtor A (Plaintiff)

B. On October 23, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on October 22, 2012 with respect to the land of 62 square meters and 480 square meters prior to the date of the transfer of ownership with respect to the land of 62 square meters and 680 square meters prior to the date of the transfer of ownership owned by ASEAN.

C. On July 22, 2013, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s donation to ASEAN constitutes a fraudulent act, and filed a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act (hereinafter “action for revocation of the fraudulent act in this case”) with the Jeonju District Court 2013da26090. On April 4, 2014, the lower court rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s proxy is recognized to have prepared the instant authentic deed as the Plaintiff’s representative, even though C was not authorized to obtain any authority from the Plaintiff by using the Plaintiff’s identification card and the certificate of personal seal impression affixed to the Plaintiff, even though C was not authorized to do so, it is difficult to view that C had the authority to represent the Plaintiff, and thus, it does not exist any preserved claim based on the instant authentic deed.”

In response to this, the defendant appealed by the Jeonju District Court 2014Na3798, but was rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal. The second appeal was made to the Supreme Court but the final appeal was dismissed. The above judgment was dismissed on March 26, 2015.