1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

According to Gap evidence No. 1, it can be acknowledged that a notarial deed of promissory notes written in the purport of the claim is written in the amount of KRW 150 million on December 31, 2014, the date of payment, January 30, 2015, and the face value of KRW 150 million.

The plaintiff asserts that, although there was no obligation between the plaintiff and the defendant, the above promissory note notarial deed was prepared formally to have another creditor extended the due date for the loan obligation by presenting the above notarial deed. Thus, even if the above notarial deed is valid, the defendant deceivings the plaintiff to use it for the purpose of extending the due date for payment, and thus, the above notarial deed was obtained by deceiving the plaintiff to use it for the purpose of extending the due date for payment. Since the plaintiff's declaration of intention to issue the above notarial deed was cancelled as a delivery of a copy of the

However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the above promissory note notarial deed was prepared formally or the defendant acquired the above promissory note notarial deed from the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, each of the above arguments by the plaintiff are without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.