A. On May 20, 2014, the Defendant comprehensively delegated the instant pention from E, the owner of the Gangwon-do Crossing-gun D’s “D” pention (hereinafter “instant pention”) and was introduced by the Plaintiff via F around July 4, 2014.

On September 6, 2014, I would like to take over the D’s pension located in Crossing-gun on October 30, 2014 to B on September 6, 2014. If I would like to take this undertaking, I would seem to be a clerical error in the E (Interimly known meaning) periodical, physical, and material form.

I will be responsible.

The above content appears to be a clerical error in writing “drawing” directly written by A.

I. b.

On September 6, 2014, the Plaintiff drafted to the Defendant each of the following descriptions (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant notes”).

C. On September 16, 2014, the Plaintiff issued and delivered to the Defendant a promissory note amounting to KRW 1,00,000 (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) on September 16, 2014, and on January 16, 2015, and on the same day, a notary public issued and delivered to the Defendant a promissory note 1,00,000,000 (hereinafter “instant promissory note”). On the same day, when the Plaintiff delays the payment of the said promissory note amount at the Chuncheon Joint Law Office under Article 815 of the deed, the Plaintiff issued and delivered a notarial deed stating that there is no objection even if he/she is immediately subject to compulsory execution (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not conclude a sales contract with the Defendant for the instant pen, and there is no reason to conclude the instant promissory note with the Defendant as an estimate of penalty or amount of damages under such sales contract.

In other words, the Promissory Notes of this case does not have any relationship with the beginning. There is no relationship with the Promissory Notes of this case as a cause.

Even if there is no legal knowledge, the plaintiff has no legal knowledge.