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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant had a relationship with each other between the dance hall around October 2005 and around January 2015, when the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, from around that time.

B. On November 6, 2014, the Plaintiff, who had maintained internal ties with the Defendant, issued a one copy of a promissory note in sight, with the Plaintiff’s issuer and the Defendant as the addressee, with a face value of KRW 385 million at a face value (hereinafter “instant promissory note”). The Plaintiff prepared a notarized deed No. 553 (hereinafter “instant notarized deed”) at the law firm branch office, and issued it to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff issued the Promissory Notes in collusion with the Defendant to pretend that the Plaintiff’s husband would have a relationship with the Defendant in preparation for a case where the Plaintiff’s husband did not borrow money from the Defendant and would have a relation with the Defendant, so the issuance and authentication of the Promissory Notes is null and void, even if the Plaintiff had been deprived of the Plaintiff’s freedom of decision-making at the time of the issuance of the Promissory Notes. Even if the Plaintiff was subject to restrictions, the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to issue the Promissory Notes was revoked through the delivery of the Promissory Notes, and thus, the Promissory Notes in this case is null and void.