2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On May 25, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment contract (hereinafter “instant entrustment contract”) with C (the representative director at that time) to which the Defendant had the right to operate the parking lot of Seoul DD building.

B. The above contract shall be paid KRW 20,000,00 to the Co., Ltd. with the contract deposit, and if it is impossible to proceed with the parking lot operation business due to the reasons of the Co., Ltd. of the dispute resolution committee, the contract deposit shall be returned to the Co., Ltd., and the contract shall become void automatically.

C. The plaintiff shall pay 120,000,000 won out of the contract deposit 20,000,000 won to the Co., Ltd. on the date of the contract, and the same year.

9. 28. 28. 20,000,000 won was paid to the Defendant’s account in addition to the sum of KRW 140,000,000.

However, due to the sale to a third party of the D building, it has become practically impossible to hold the parking lot operation right of the LAC, and the plaintiff claimed to the LAC refund of KRW 140,000,000 for some contract deposit which it has already received by the LAC.

E. Accordingly, on July 12, 2013, the Defendant issued and delivered to the Plaintiff a promissory note with the face value of KRW 140,000,000 and the due date of payment as of December 31, 2013 (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) and completed the promissory note process by using it.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 3, and 4 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that, through the issuance of the Promissory Notes, if the Defendant guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to return unjust enrichment of KRW 140,000,000 in the contract deposit amounting to KRW 140,000 to the Plaintiff following the loss of the validity of the instant consignment contract through the issuance of the Promissory Notes, the Plaintiff sought the return of the Promissory Notes. The Defendant asserted that the said Promissory Notes was made by the strong pressure of the Plaintiff and did not issue the obligation to return unjust enrichment as the intent

B. The issuance of a promissory note to secure a specific person’s obligation shall be civil as between the issuer and the creditor.