1. The Defendant’s KRW 52 million and the Plaintiff’s 12% per annum from April 11, 2015 to March 20, 2018, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 4, 2013, the date of payment, May 31, 2013, and the date of payment, the promissory notes of KRW 52,00,000 are written by the Defendant’s husband C and the Defendant as joint issuers, and written on the same day.

B. On July 10, 2015, the Defendant promised to refund KRW 52 million to the Plaintiff, respectively, by February 28, 2016.

C. On August 23, 2017, C filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Plaintiff as the Chuncheon District Court 2016da51210 regarding the notarial deed of the said promissory note, and rendered a favorable judgment on August 23, 2017, which rejected compulsory execution based on the said notarial deed for the following reasons.

C and the defendant married around 1997, and the defendant from around 2009 to bear the obligation while making monetary transactions with D.

D was responsible for the debt to the Plaintiff, and transferred its credit to the Plaintiff for the repayment of the debt.

On April 4, 2013, when preparing the above Promissory Notes, the Defendant affixed C’s seal on the name side of C, and C submitted to the attorney-at-law in charge of authentication a power of attorney-at-law to delegate C with the preparation of authentic deeds to the Defendant.

C On August 29, 2016, the Defendant filed a complaint for forging securities, etc., and the Defendant was found to have committed a crime of forging securities.

Unless the defendant has entrusted the preparation of a notarial deed by forging promissory notes and power of attorney in the name of C without obtaining lawful authorization from C, the notarial deed shall be null and void and the compulsory execution based thereon shall not be allowed.

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

2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s argument is that D’s collection was provisionally seized as D’s borrowing KRW 52 million from E, and D and the Defendant demanded D and the Defendant to lend money to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff on April 4, 2013.