1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 20, 2018, the Defendant, as a notary public, prepared a notarial deed in the capacity of the payee and the issuer’s agent on a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with respect to the date of issuance under the name of the Plaintiff, May 10, 2018, the date of payment, at sight, at par value, at par value, KRW 60,000,000, and for a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) under the name of the payee and the issuer, as

(hereinafter referred to as “instant authentic deed”). B.

On March 21, 2019, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the payment of the Promissory Notes (Seoul Central District Court 2019Da506446).

C. The Defendant filed a motion for compulsory execution against the Plaintiff’s movable property based on the notarial deed of this case with Suwon District Court D.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. On March 22, 2017, the Plaintiff’s assertion E received a successful bid in an auction under the Plaintiff’s name of the F, G, H, and I land (hereinafter “instant land”) and decided to operate a joint development project based on the Plaintiff’s technical ability.

E and J provided that the Plaintiff, the land holder, should prepare promissory notes in order to secure the right of retention to the Defendant to whom K’s lien was delegated, and the Plaintiff did not receive money from the Defendant.

Therefore, the Promissory Notes and Notarial Deed are null and void.

B. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff, as the nominal owner of the land, issued the Promissory Notes in this case with the Defendant as the addressee on his own will, and even if the Plaintiff did not actually borrow money from the Defendant, such circumstance alone does not necessarily mean that the issuance of the Promissory Notes in this case is null and void, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

Even if the Plaintiff’s assertion was made to the effect that the act of issuing the Promissory Notes in this case is invalid by a false declaration of agreement.