1. A notary public against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) A by the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) on October 23, 2014 written in DD 2014.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a company established for the purpose of material wholesale and retail business, etc., Plaintiff A is the representative director of the Plaintiff company, and Plaintiff E is the husband of Plaintiff A.

B. On October 23, 2014, F and E delegated by the Defendant: (a) a notary public drafted in D a notarial deed (No. 2, hereinafter “instant notarial deed”); (b) the key contents thereof are as follows.

Creditors: The joint and several sureties E: The loan amount of KRW 315,096,00: the date of loan of KRW 315,09,00: October 21, 2014: October 31, 2015.

The notarial deed of this case is accompanied by a loan certificate with the following contents (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).

A borrower of the certificate of "Loan": The borrower of the defendant: E

1. Amount of loan: 315,096,000 won;

2. Purpose of lending: Temporary lending (the management of the responsibility at the sites of Gwork 3 Sections Ma4 Electrical Construction Sites);

3. Date of lease: Temporary repayment by October 31, 2015;

5. Damages for delay for repayment: Each description, image, and whole oral argument of 7% per annum on October 23, 2014: E joint and several sureties: the fact that there is no dispute over the personal seal affixed by the plaintiff company (representative director: A) and the seal affixed by the plaintiff company (based on recognition), Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply);

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since Plaintiff A did not confer the power of representation on the commission of the preparation of the instant notarial deed to Plaintiff A, the part against Plaintiff A in the instant notarial deed is invalid.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case against the plaintiff A should not be allowed.

B. The Plaintiff Company did not provide joint and several sureties’s debt, and there is no loan obligation against the Defendant.

Therefore, the Plaintiff Company seeks to confirm that there is no joint and several surety obligation against the Defendant on October 23, 2014.

C. Defendant 1 is Pyeongtaek-si.