1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1's argument as to the cause of the claim, the defendant issued, August 30, 2006, a promissory note stating the issuer, the payee, the plaintiff, the place of issuance, the place of payment, the place of payment, the Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter "the Promissory note of this case") on the date of August 30, 2007, and thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above promissory note amount of KRW 210,000,000 and delay damages therefrom, barring special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant's defenses and improper supplement defenses of blank bills recognized that the defendant signed and sealed the " drawer" column of the bill of this case to the plaintiff. However, it is proved to the effect that the plaintiff's defenses that the bill of this case cannot be recognized as valid because the plaintiff supplemented the bill of this case, although the face value of the bill of this case was blank at the time of issuance.

In other words, there is a burden of proving that the bill is invalid as an incomplete bill, because, in principle, it is presumed that the bill is a blank bill for which the issuer grants a supplementary right. In other words, it is not issued by the drawer or its holder as the intent to supplement the blank portion of the bill.

(2) If a promissory note was issued by the Plaintiff on April 24, 2001 (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da6718, Apr. 24, 2001). The Plaintiff’s return to the instant case and health class, and the Plaintiff signed and sealed the Plaintiff’s column for the drawer of the instant Promissory Notes, and delivered it to the Defendant. As seen earlier, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant’s issuance of a promissory note was caused by the Plaintiff’s coercion.