A. The Plaintiff, around 2016, served as a field management employee of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) who performed the “D Corporation” (hereinafter “E”), and the Defendant entered into a subcontract agreement with E and performed the strong pressure entry construction during the said construction.

B. E filed an application for corporate rehabilitation procedures around March 2016 due to business difficulties, and the Defendant, who did not receive construction payment, suspended construction work around May 2016 through June 6.

C. On June 7, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant issued to the Defendant a promissory note with the face value of KRW 80,000,000,000 at a notary public’s office No. 266, and with the due date of June 30, 2016, written a promissory note with the face value of KRW 100,000,000,000 at a notary public’s office, and the due date of July 30, 2016, under the No. 268 of the Certificate No. 2016, No. 268 of the Certificate No. 2016, No. 2016, a notary public’s office, written and issued a notarial deed to the effect that no objection is raised even if compulsory execution is conducted.

(B) The notarial deed of promissory Notes No. 268 of 2016, No. 268 of 2016, No. 100,000, and the date of payment (hereinafter “notarial deed of Promissory Notes No. 30 of 2016, Aug. 30, 2016”)

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion prepared and delivered to the Defendant a promissory note notarial deed, including the instant promissory note notarial deed, and the Defendant agreed to resume the construction by the day following the day following the date of notarial deed, if the construction is delayed, the notarial deed issued by the Plaintiff is invalid, and thus, the Defendant delayed the resumption of the construction. As such, the execution of the notarial deed of the instant promissory note notarial deed is void and thus

B. The defendant's assertion is to resume construction from June 8, 2016.