1. A deed prepared on April 6, 2017 by the defendant's law firm C belonging to the Seoul East District Prosecutors' Office against the plaintiff.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the Plaintiff’s spouse and representative director of D Co., Ltd.’s written evidence and the overall purport of oral argument as to the cause of the claim, Eul borrowed money from the Defendant around April 6, 2017, and issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with a face value of 52 million won to the Defendant. The said promissory note contains the Plaintiff’s name and address as one of four joint issuers (D Co., Ltd., E,F, and Plaintiff), and the Plaintiff’s seal impression is affixed next thereto (However, it is unclear whether E directly stated the Plaintiff’s name and address in the issuer column of the instant promissory note, and the Plaintiff’s seal imprint and seal impression are affixed to the Defendant, or whether E provided the Defendant with the Plaintiff’s seal imprint and seal imprint are affixed to the Defendant. As long as the Plaintiff’s joint issuer and the Defendant’s attorney-at-law were unable to pay the said promissory note, the Plaintiff’s legitimate authority to prepare and affix the notarial deed as evidence to the effect that the Plaintiff’s signature and seal was not presented.

Therefore, the part against the plaintiff among the Notarial Deed of this case is invalid, and it is based on this.