1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 205,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 20, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. The Defendant, on January 2013, issued a promissory note (the date of issuance: KRW 205,00,000 on January 17, 2013; KRW 205,00,000 on the date of payment) to the Plaintiff. On January 21, 2013, the Defendant, who is the issuer of the said promissory note, has the duty to pay KRW 205,00,000 to the Plaintiff, who is the addressee of the said promissory note, a notarized deed with executory power as C joint Office No. 2013 and 0065 on January 21, 2013 (Evidence No. 1).

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant's assertion 1) that the non-existence of the underlying claim or the extinction of prescription is the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff himself is well aware of D, and the plaintiff is engaged in real estate brokerage business. The plaintiff is also a new Dr. Dr. Dr.'s investment together with F, G, and H land around September 201, the plaintiff paid 205,00,000 won to E and received a cash custody certificate from E, using a cash custody certificate to the Seoul Western District Court 2012Kahap96, Seoul Western District Court 2012Kahap96. The defendant issued a promissory note to the plaintiff in order to ensure that the plaintiff's husband was aware of it in the process of resolving the dispute, and even if so, the defendant did not have any legal relationship with the plaintiff, and thus, the defendant cannot accept the claim of the plaintiff for the redemption of the principal claim against E, which is the principal obligation to guarantee the return of the plaintiff's debt to E, which is the principal obligation to the plaintiff.