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

가. 원고는 연인관계였던 D과 함께 2013. 9. 4. D의 신엄마(神母, 무속인)인 피고에게 수취인 피고, 액면금 3억 원인 일람출급식 약속어음(이하 ‘이 사건 약속어음’이라 한다)을 발행하고, 같은 날 위 어음에 대한 이 사건 공정증서를 작성해 주었다.

B. On December 20, 2013, the Defendant issued a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff’s money up to KRW 300,343,850, out of the judgment amount based on the final and conclusive judgment of the Seoul Central District Court on the Plaintiff’s damages claim 2013Gahap521680 against the Republic of Korea, the Seoul Central District Court issued the seizure and collection order against the said money up to KRW 300,343,850, among the judgment amount based on the final and conclusive judgment of the case.

C. On July 21, 2014, the Plaintiff’s agent E, on behalf of the Plaintiff, sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that “Although the Plaintiff was divided into several stories to purchase real estate owned by the Defendant, the instant judgment was not made yet, and the ownership transfer registration was not received for the real estate owned by the Defendant, so there is no ground for the Defendant to claim KRW 300 million to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant should withdraw the seizure and collection order, and take the procedure of nullifying the instant promissory note and the notarial deed. In addition, even if the Plaintiff agreed to purchase the Defendant’s land, the Plaintiff shall rescind all of them.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. Since the obligation of the Promissory Notes, which is an executory bond under the Plaintiff’s assertion, is nonexistent or extinguished for the following reasons, compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed shall not be permitted.

1. The Plaintiff issued the Promissory Notes in this case as it was impossible for the Plaintiff to receive a proposal from D to pay the purchase price for the Party.