A. On June 28, 2007, C, the Plaintiff’s wife, prepared and issued a promissory note with the Defendant’s name of KRW 200,000,000, the issue date, June 28, 2007, Gyeonggi-do, the place of payment, and the Gyeonggi-do, the place of issuance, the Gyeonggi-do, the place of issue (hereinafter “instant promissory note”).

B. On November 17, 2008, the Defendant drafted a notarial deed of promissory notes in this case as an issuer’s agent and an addressee’s agent under No. 692 of the No. 2008 No. 692 of the No. 2008 (hereinafter “notarial deed of promissory notes in this case”).

C. Based on the instant promissory note, the Defendant filed an application for a payment order seeking payment of KRW 200,000,000 against the Plaintiff with the Sungwon District Court 2012 tea1487, Sungnam-si, Gwangju District Court, and issued a payment order corresponding to the purport of the said application on June 12, 2012, and became final and conclusive around that time.

After that, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Defendant as Suwon District Court Branch Branch 2014Gahap6905, which sought non-performance of compulsory execution based on the above payment order. On June 18, 2015, the above court rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the Defendant’s debt (232,40,000 won per annum, interest rate of 66% per annum, and August 27, 2007) on June 28, 2007 against Non-Party D’s Defendant was in order to guarantee the Defendant’s debt borrowed (232,40,000 won per annum, interest rate of 66% per annum, and due date of reimbursement of August 27, 2007). However, the above judgment became final and conclusive on July 7, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] The statements in Gap's Evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 8

2. According to the facts of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, since the obligation of the Promissory Notes became extinct due to the repayment of the cause of the obligation, it is reasonable to deny the Defendant’s compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of Promissory Notes against the Plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable and acceptable.