1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is a notarial deed No. 253, 2015, written by law firm (with limited liability).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is an insurance agency company. Around June 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a commissioning contract with the Defendant, which is an insurance solicitor belonging to the Defendant, to perform the branch office duties (hereinafter “instant commissioning contract”).

B. At the time of the instant commission contract, the Plaintiff agreed to return the full amount of settlement subsidy if dismissal is made within nine months after receiving the settlement subsidy from the Defendant. On June 25, 2015, the Plaintiff drafted a notarial deed stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay 20 million won to the Defendant by December 25, 2015, by adding damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum to the Defendant, and if delay is made, the Plaintiff shall pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum if a notary public pays 20 million won to the Defendant by December 25, 2015.”

C. On September 14, 2015, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff from the Defendant’s branch office on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s affiliated insurance solicitors distributed customer database unfairly to the insurance solicitors and protested against the legitimate order of the trading company.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including the paper number), witness B's testimony and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) at the time of the instant commission contract, the Defendant prepared the instant notarial deed to guarantee the full return of the said subsidy if he/she withdraws within nine months while receiving the settlement subsidy of KRW 20 million from the Defendant at the time of the instant commission contract.

However, since the defendant was unfairly dismissed on September 2015 and was dismissed due to reasons attributable to the plaintiff, there is no obligation to return the settlement subsidy to the defendant.

Any compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case shall be prohibited.

B. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion is the Defendant around June 2015.