1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not have commissioned a notary public to prepare a bill or note No. 1289 on May 31, 2013 in writing (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) and did not have issued promissory notes of KRW 15,000,000 for face value attached to the said notarial deed.

Even if the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay promissory notes against the Defendant exists, there is no remaining amount after the Plaintiff deducts the allowances incurred during the period of service as an insurance solicitor belonging to the Defendant.

Therefore, this paper seeks confirmation of the absence of a promissory note obligation based on the Notarial Deed of this case.

2. In full view of the purport of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (a delegation letter, the Plaintiff’s authenticity is recognized as the whole document due to no dispute over the Plaintiff’s seal impression), the Plaintiff, upon becoming an insurance solicitor belonging to the Defendant around April 30, 2013, issued a promissory note with a face value of KRW 15,00,000 to the Defendant with a face value of KRW 15,00,00,000 to the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s performance of a promissory note was returned to the Plaintiff; if the Plaintiff’s performance of a promissory note was not achieved, the Plaintiff prepared an agreement on the settlement support with the Defendant to exercise rights under the said promissory note; if the Plaintiff’s performance of a mutual growth, the Plaintiff’s performance of a promissory note was not fulfilled with a face value of KRW 15,00,000 and KRW 36,00,000,00 for each of the notarial notes issued by the Defendant.