Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The first instance judgment is the purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal.

A. On July 24, 2014, C issued a promissory note of KRW 200 million to the Defendant, and a notary public drafted, from Law Firm D to Law Firm D, a fair deed of promissory note of KRW 681 (hereinafter “fair deed of this case”).

B. C had a claim against the judgment amounting to the effect that “C shall pay KRW 1,127,691,416 and delayed damages to C” (hereinafter “the claim against the judgment amount of this case”) in some of the lawsuit claiming a loan (No. 2007, 12244, 2009Da37000, Seoul High Court Decision 201Da33810, Supreme Court Decision 2011Da3381) filed against E.

(c)

The Defendant, with the title to execute the instant process certificate, filed an application for a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant claim seizure and collection order”) with the Suwon District Court Branch 2014, 15723 as to the instant claim for the instant judgment, and received the decision of acceptance on November 11, 2014.

(d)

C transferred the instant claim to FF Co., Ltd. on November 12, 2014, and F Co., Ltd. transferred the instant claim to F Co., Ltd. again to the Plaintiff on February 16, 2015.

E. Meanwhile, on December 19, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the agreed amount with the Suwon District Court Sung-nam Branch 2019 Defendant 625292, and received a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff on January 18, 2020 that “C would pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30 million and the delayed damages therefrom” (hereinafter “instant preserved claim”). The said judgment became final and conclusive on January 18, 2020 (hereinafter “the grounds for recognition”) (hereinafter “instant preserved claim”). [In the absence of any dispute on the grounds for recognition”), each entry in the evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 7 (including numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion C prepared the instant fair deed to the Defendant under the belief and conditional terms that the Defendant would lend KRW 100,000 on the face of the week by preparing the instant fair deed.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not lend the above KRW 100 million agreed upon to C, so the fairness deed of this case has no effect due to the non-performance of conditions.

Therefore, it is therefore.