1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On April 2, 2015, the Plaintiff’s basic fact is the Defendant’s KRW 120 million in face value, KRW 120 million in face value, and KRW 20 million in the issuance date, April 2, 2015, and KRW 10 million in the date of payment, as of April 2, 2016.

The facts that a notarial deed of this case was prepared and executed to the effect that the immediate compulsory execution is to be effected against this case are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by the statement of evidence No. 1.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. (1) The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff issued the Promissory Notes in this case on the condition that the defendant lent KRW 120 million to the plaintiff as a condition to suspend the defendant's lending of KRW 120 million to the plaintiff, and prepared the Notarial Deed in this case, but the defendant did not lend KRW 120 million to the plaintiff.

Therefore, a monetary loan contract entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void, and the executory power of the notarial deed of this case based on it cannot be recognized as valid.

(2) (A) There is no evidence suggesting that the Plaintiff issued the Promissory Notes of this case on the condition of suspending the lending of KRW 120 million from the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

(B) Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4, the defendant, at the plaintiff's recommendation, issued the Promissory Notes in this case for the purpose of securing the above obligation to return the investment amount to the defendant of D, and only can it be recognized that "the defendant has invested KRW 120 million to D, and D has paid 2% per month as profit dividends from the investment amount, and at the expiration of the period of the agreement on the investment amount (one year from the date of receipt of the investment amount) (hereinafter "the investment agreement in this case"). The plaintiff issued the Promissory Notes in this case for the purpose of securing the above obligation to return the investment amount to D, and made and made the notarial deed in this case.

(C) The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B. Judgment on the ancillary cause of claim (1)