2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. On June 17, 201, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a promissory note with a face value of KRW 100,000,000 at face value, the payee, and the due date on July 31, 201, the issue date on June 17, 201, the issue date, the place of issue, the place of payment, and the place of payment, respectively (hereinafter referred to as “instant promissory note”).

B. On July 31, 201, the date for payment, the Plaintiff presented the instant promissory note to the Defendant, but was refused to pay, and the Plaintiff currently holds the instant promissory note.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant, as the issuer of the Promissory Notes, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 100,000,000 of the Promissory Notes as the issuer and the bearer of the Promissory Notes, who lawfully presented payment within the due date, as well as the amount of KRW 5% per annum from August 1, 2011 to July 31, 2014, the day following the date on which the Plaintiff seeks payment, which is the date of delivery of the Promissory Notes, and the delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant, upon introduction by the Defendant, sold real estate owned by the Plaintiff to C. However, as C did not pay the purchase price to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff threatened the Defendant to assume responsibility therefor, and the Defendant issued the Promissory Notes under the Plaintiff’s intimidation or coercion, and thus, the Promissory Notes in this case are null and void.

The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 3 are insufficient to recognize that the Defendant prepared the Promissory Notes in this case by intimidation by the Plaintiff. There is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Rather, according to the statement No. 2-1 of the evidence No. 2, the Defendant is owned by the Plaintiff on June 16, 201, the day before the issuance of the Promissory Notes in this case.