1. The Defendant’s notary public’s joint law office against the Plaintiff No. 511, Sept. 2, 201, prepared by C&A office on September 2, 2011.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 4, 2011, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a promissory note with a face value of KRW 4,000,000, and the due date for payment, with a face value of KRW 4,000,00 (hereinafter “instant promissory note”).

B. The Plaintiff, at the time of the issuance of the Promissory Notes, entered his name and address in the proxy letter column stating that “the Plaintiff delegates the authority to commission the Defendant to prepare an authentic deed.”

C. The above power of attorney states "Place of Service" under the small address of the Plaintiff as above as stated above "Seoul Northern-gu D."

(It is unclear whether the above service place was entered)

D. On September 2, 2011, the Defendant entrusted an obligee and an obligor’s agent with the preparation of a notarial deed on the Promissory Notes in this case, and a notary public drafted a notarial deed as indicated in paragraph (1) of this Article (hereinafter “notarial deed”).

E. On September 5, 201, a notary public sent a notice of the fact that the notarial deed of this case was prepared as of September 5, 201 to the place of delivery indicated in the said Paragraph (c).

F. On November 15, 201, upon the Defendant’s application of the instant notarial deed as the title of execution, the corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff were seized, and the Defendant received KRW 220,000 through the said auction procedure.

(B) On August 25, 2015, 201, corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff were seized upon the Defendant’s motion that made the instant notarial deed as executive title.

(The District Court 2015No3806). H.

The statutes related to the instant case shall be as shown in the attached Form.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. On the grounds delineated below the gist of the assertion, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case shall not be permitted.

1) The instant notarial deed was drafted by the Defendant’s arbitrary commission without the Plaintiff’s consent. (2) The Plaintiff from the Defendant on August 4, 2011.