1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is a law firm's certificate prepared in the country, No. 550 of 2014.

1. Basic facts (applicable for recognition: Fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and purport of all pleadings);

A. From August 2008 to April 2009, the Plaintiff lent a credit card under the name of the Defendant (one new card, one Samsung Card), and one credit card under the name of the Defendant husband, and repaid the amount of the credit card use. Of these, the amount of the credit card use that was not paid is KRW 9,980,769 in total.

B. On February 2, 2010, the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant the sum of KRW 500,000,000 to KRW 500,000 on March 3, 2010, KRW 300,000 on April 2, 2010, KRW 300,000 on May 3, 2010, and KRW 1.9 million on October 1, 2010.

C. Thereafter, on October 2, 2014, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a copy of a promissory note, the face value of which is KRW 30 million and which is payable at sight (hereinafter “instant promissory note”). On the same day, with respect to the instant promissory note, the Plaintiff was a notary public who issued and affixed the instant promissory note to a notary public, and if the Plaintiff delays the payment of the instant promissory note to the bearer of the instant promissory note, the purport of recognizing and recognizing that there is no objection even if he/she is subject to compulsory execution.”

On October 3, 2014, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 9.4 million to the Defendant, and transferred KRW 4.3 million via D on October 25, 2014.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff issued the Promissory Notes in this case without any choice but without any choice due to the Defendant’s assault and coercion under well-known circumstances, and prepared the Notarial Deed in this case. In fact, the unpaid card usage amount, which is the underlying claim of the Promissory Notes, is limited to KRW 9,980,769.