1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 25, 2012, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) at the face value of KRW 250,000,000 for the Defendant, and on May 30, 2013 for the payment date, and then a notary public drafted a notarial deed to the effect that, if the Plaintiff delays the payment of the said note to the bearer of the instant promissory note, the Plaintiff did not raise any objection even if he was immediately subject to compulsory execution (Evidence A; hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

B. The Plaintiff did not pay the above amount to the Defendant, who is the holder of the Promissory Notes of this case, until the above payment date expired.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion by coercion is that the Plaintiff issued the Promissory Notes and prepared the instant authentic deed for C as a result of the Defendant’s threat that he would file a complaint against the Plaintiff’s friendship C in fraud. As such, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the issuance of the Promissory Notes and the instant authentic deed are revoked by serving a written document dated December 16, 2013. 2) The Plaintiff’s testimony alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant made a coercion with respect to the issuance of the Promissory Notes and the preparation of the instant authentic deed, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, and therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion that was cancelled due to fraud is as follows: (a) prior to the issuance of the Promissory Notes in this case and the preparation of the notarial deed in this case, C had already made payment of its debt to the Defendant; (b) the Defendant had deceiving the Plaintiff as if the said debt was not extinguished.