1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim filed by this court are dismissed.

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff filed a motion for non-permission of compulsory execution pursuant to the No. 1 No. 1 No. 1 notarial deed (No. 137 of 2013, No. 137 of 2013) and the No. 2 notarial deed (No. 145 of 2014, No. 3205) of this case.

The first instance judgment dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim as to the No. 1 No. 1 of this case, and accepted the Plaintiff’s claim as to the No. 2 of this case on the ground that the extinctive prescription of promissory notes subject to the No. 2 of this case

On the part against which only the plaintiff lost, the defendant filed a counterclaim to claim a loan according to the underlying relationship of the No. 2 of this case in the court of first instance.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on the plaintiff's non-permission of compulsory execution by No. 1 No. 1 notarial deed and the part on the counterclaim claim filed by the defendant by the court of first instance.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's appeal

A. The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal is not significantly different from the argument in the first instance trial.

In full view of the following circumstances, in addition to the matters appropriately stated in the judgment of the first instance, the No. 1 of this case is invalid as a false declaration against the public order and good morals or as a conspiracy, and its exercise of the right is an abuse of rights against the good faith principle. The issuance of promissory notes and the signature of the No. 1 of this case is revoked by coercion, and the judgment of the first instance to the same effect is justifiable.

① The Plaintiff initially asserted that not only KRW 250 million was paid by the Defendant, but also that there was no difference between the Plaintiff and the Defendant before the preparation of the No. 1 No. 201 (Evidence No. 7). However, there was a charge of money between the Plaintiff and the Defendant prior to the preparation of the No. 1 notarial deed (Evidence No. 7) (No. 5) and the Plaintiff’s statement that the Plaintiff would pay to the Defendant (Evidence No. 12) is returned (Evidence No. 12).