A. A. Around 2013, around 2013, C stated that “if money is invested, she may purchase 4 bonds of Ansan-gu apartment, purchase them at a low price, sell them at a high price, and make profits equivalent to the difference.” On August 29, 2013, C demanded the Defendant to prepare a promissory note notarial deed as to KRW 200,000,000,000,000, which is the sum of investment and interest, so that C and D who introduced them can guarantee the return of the investment amount.

B. Accordingly, on August 30, 2013, C and D, as the Plaintiff’s agent, as the issuer, entrusted the issuer with the preparation of a notarial deed as to one promissory note, which consists of “the amount of KRW 200 million, issuer C, D and Plaintiff, the date of issuance, August 30, 2013, and the date of payment, November 29, 2013, and the Defendant.” Accordingly, C and D, as the agent of the issuer, drafted a notarial deed (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) of Pyeongtaek-si Law Firm 2013, No. 516, No. 516, a notary public, stating that “When delay in the payment of the amount of a bill, a notary public is not dissatisfied with a compulsory execution.”

C. Based on the instant notarial deed, on February 13, 2014, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction as to 101 Dong 802, Seo-gu, Daejeon District Court E, Seo-gu, Daejeon District Court for a compulsory auction on February 14, 2014, and received a decision to commence compulsory auction on February 14, 2014. ② On February 13, 2014, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction on the instant notarial deed with respect to the 658 square meters of Pyeongtaek-si H-si and 75 square meters of I forest (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) owned by the Plaintiff, and received a decision to commence compulsory auction on February 14, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2 (including the number of branches; hereinafter the same shall apply), the witness J's testimony, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. While the Plaintiff’s assertion was proceeding with D with the new construction project on each of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff changed its design from D around August 2013.