1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

On June 25, 2003, the non-party Newan Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company") borrowed KRW 500 million from C on June 25, 2003, and written a certificate of borrowing money (hereinafter referred to as the "certificate of borrowing in this case") stating that D et al. is jointly and severally liable for the above borrowed money, and received KRW 500 million from C on the same

On the other hand, D was bound by the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act as it issued and rejected the check of the amount of 90 million won per face value around 2004.

Accordingly, on April 27, 2005, the defendant, a partner of D, issued a promissory note with a face value of KRW 300 million (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) to the plaintiff who finally holds the said note with a view to reduction of or exemption from D's criminal punishment, and prepared a notarial deed to the effect that there is no objection even if it is immediately subject to compulsory execution, and recovered the said note of shares.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the plaintiff's assertion to the purport of the whole argument as to the purport of the whole argument is written in C, but the actual creditor is the plaintiff, and the defendant takes over 300 million won out of D's debt to the plaintiff by issuing the Promissory Notes. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the loan amount of 300 million won and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

Judgment

However, in light of the fact that the creditor’s name stated in the instant loan certificate is C, and the remitter who deposited KRW 500 million in the non-party company is also C, and that the creditor who lent KRW 500 million in the non-party company to the non-party company is indicated C even in the fact that the Plaintiff received a written confirmation (Evidence No. 5) at the time when the certificate of promissory notes was drawn up by the Defendant, the Plaintiff was finally holding the face value per share of KRW 900 million in the issuance of D. Thus, it is difficult to view that the creditor who lent KRW 50

Defendant.