1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 28, 2011, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) to the Defendant indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) and prepared a notarial deed No. 423 of the 2011 No. 323 of the No. 2011, a notary public’s office (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) to the effect that the said promissory note will recognize compulsory execution, and the Plaintiff did not bring the Plaintiff the authentic copy immediately after the instant notarial deed was prepared.

B. However, on November 20, 2014, the Defendant filed a public summons with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2014Kadan112 on the ground of the loss of the Promissory Notes, and received the judgment of nullification on March 9, 2015 (hereinafter “instant judgment”). On the same day, the Defendant presented the instant judgment of nullification to the notary public who prepared the instant notarial deed, and again received the original copy of the instant notarial deed, and accordingly, received the seizure and collection order as to the Plaintiff’s claim for wages, etc. against the Republic of Korea by Seoul East East District Court 2015TT3794 on March 13, 2015.

C. Furthermore, on August 13, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of KRW 300 million and delay damages therefor with the Seoul East Eastern District Court Decision 2016Da12428, and received a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on August 27, 2016, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

On the other hand, on December 24, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the issuance of the Promissory Notes as Seoul Eastern District Court 2012Gahap20336 against the Defendant is null and void, and the issuance of the Promissory Notes as Seoul Eastern District Court 201Gahap2036 was filed by filing a lawsuit of objection demanding the refusal of compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of the Promissory Notes, and was sentenced to a judgment by public notice

On March 24, 2015, the Defendant filed an appeal against this, Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na2017102, and the Seoul High Court revoked the judgment of the first instance court and dismissed all the Plaintiff’s claims on November 5, 2015, deeming that the instant promissory note was issued based on the Plaintiff’s genuine intent.