1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On May 3, 2012, according to the commission of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the citizens of the law firm based on the facts: (a) drafted a notarial deed to the effect that “the Plaintiff, on January 30, 2012, issued to the Defendant a promissory note with face value of KRW 117,00,000,000, and the due date of January 30, 2013; and (b) if the payment of a promissory note is delayed to the holder of the said note, i.e., delayed compulsory execution, i., recognition that there is no objection.” (hereinafter referred to as “instant notarial deed”).

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Eul evidence 2

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff introduced the Plaintiff to offer KRW 500 million to the Plaintiff, and prepared and executed the instant notarial deed. However, since the investors introduced by the Defendant did not make any investment, the instant notarial deed has no effect as an executive title.

B. The notarial deed of this case asserted by the defendant is naturally effective as an executive title, which was prepared to repay the plaintiff's existing loan to the defendant.

3. There is no evidence to prove that the notarial deed of this case was prepared on the condition of introducing new investors or providing investment funds, as alleged by the plaintiff.

Rather, according to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2-4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 6 (including above numbers), and the whole purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff is deemed to have prepared the notarial deed of this case for the performance of its repayment obligation upon the defendant's request while operating the company "Co., Ltd." and not performing its obligation to repay the funds received from the defendant around 2001.

4. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit and it is so decided as per Disposition.