1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 14, 2009, the Defendant and C prepared a letter stating that “In the event that the sale is not performed by November 10, 2009, the Plaintiff shall be paid KRW 100,000,000 as penalty to the Plaintiff with penalty” (hereinafter “each letter of this case”).

B. On November 16, 2009, the Defendant and C prepared and executed a notarial deed on each of the instant notes (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) by a notary public No. 3308 of the Ministry of Justice F, etc. as a law firm F, etc. (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) to the Plaintiff.

C. Meanwhile, the defendant was above B.

On October 14, 2009, a notary public prepared and executed a notarial deed (hereinafter “instant promissory note notarial deed”) with respect to promissory notes issued by the Plaintiff as the issuer, the Defendant, and the Plaintiff as of October 14, 2009, the number of 100,000,000 par value per law firm F209.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 2, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) On October 14, 2009, the defendant prepared and executed the instant promissory note No. 1 to the plaintiff on October 14, 2009, and as a result, the defendant failed to perform the obligations under the said note, the defendant prepared a notarial deed (the instant notarial deed) on each of the instant notes, and issued promissory note No. 1,00,000 and made and issued the instant notarial note No. 1,000 to the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,00,000 in accordance with the notarial note No. 1,000 according to the notarial deed of this case. 2) The fact that the defendant prepared and executed the instant notarial note No. 1,00,000 to the plaintiff, barring any special circumstances, and the defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay

B. The gist of the defendant's argument and judgment 1) The defendant's argument that the defendant's plaintiff's son G is about 400,000,000 won from the plaintiff on March 6, 2008 and borrowed at the interest rate of 30% per annum (the loan actually extended to 376,000.).