1. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from March 25, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument in subparagraph 1, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff on September 12, 2012 the amount of KRW 100 million per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from March 25, 2017 to the date following the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case, to the plaintiff on September 12, 2012, the date of payment, September 12, 2013, and the date of payment, September 12, 2013. There is no counter-proof. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff money calculated at the rate of KRW 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from March 25, 2017 to the date of full payment.

2. First, the defendant asserts that there was no participation in the preparation of the above notarial deed or promissory note and C was led by C, and that there was no liability for payment of the above promissory note. However, according to the evidence No. 1, it can be recognized that the defendant directly appeared in the above notarial deed office and commissioned the preparation of the above notarial deed,

Next, the defendant asserted that the claim of this case is unfair since the defendant agreed to pay only 10,00 won with respect to the amount of the promissory note in the relevant criminal case (the Seoul Southern District Court 2013 High Court 2013 High Court 2014No1568 fraud, etc., and the second instance court 2014No1568 fraud, etc.). However, in full view of the overall purport of arguments in subparagraphs 2-1 and 2-2, the defendant prepared a written agreement to pay 10,000 won to the plaintiff in relation to the above criminal case on February 5, 2015 for the first time in the above criminal case, but it is recognized that the above agreement was related to the amount of the promissory note itself or it included in the civil liability. Thus, the above assertion is without merit, without any further need.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.