1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff married with C, and was aware of the Defendant around October 2012, and maintained internal relations with the Defendant from around that time to October 2016.

B. On June 14, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 140 million to the Defendant. On June 17, 2013, the Defendant acquired and commenced the operation of the Lestop in the trade name “D”.

C. On September 19, 2014, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a promissory note of KRW 180 million at a face value as of September 19, 2014 (hereinafter “first promissory note”). On the same day, a notary public drafted a notary deed of promissory note with No. 696 on the 2014, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 90 million to the Defendant on September 30, 2014.

On November 7, 2014, the Plaintiff received a return of the said promissory note from the Defendant, and issued to the Defendant a promissory note (hereinafter “second promissory note”) with a face value of KRW 500 million as of March 31, 2015. On the same day, a notary public made a notarized deed of promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with a No. 786 on the 2014 deed, and the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 260,045,000 to the Defendant from November 28, 2014 to September 30, 2016.

The plaintiff asserts that there is a fact that he paid 50 million won to the defendant in cash on or around December 2014, but there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including the provisional number), and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings as to the purport of the whole pleadings has leased KRW 140 million to the defendant on June 14, 2013, and thus, the defendant is obligated to repay this to the plaintiff.

The first and second promissory notes are prepared and delivered by threat against the defendant's attack, and thus are null and void, or are made under a contract to extend the overlapping relationship with the defendant against good morals and other social order, and thus their causal relationship is null and void.

Nevertheless, the plaintiff is the defendant on 2014.