1. Certificates No. 64, 2014, drawn up by the Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff on February 11, 2014 by the three law firms.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 11, 2014, the Plaintiff issued and delivered to the Defendant a promissory note amounting to KRW 30 million at the face value, and as of May 31, 2014 on the same day, and, if the payment of the said note is delayed on the same day, a notarial deed (No. 64 of 2014, a notary public, a law firm, hereinafter “instant promissory note notarial deed”) to the effect that no objection is raised even if he/she is subject to compulsory execution.

B. On February 8, 2014, the Defendant: (a) from around 21:00 to February 21, 2014 to around 05:00 of the Plaintiff and Nonparty C (A: D); (b) from around 21:00 on February 8, 2014 to around 05:0, the Defendant 10,000 won based on 30,000,000 won using 30,000,000 won, and confirmed the failure; (c) paid 20,000 won by 10,000 won; (d) additionally received 1 to 205,000 won, and (e) received 1 to 205,000 won, namely, a fine of KRW 1 to 105,000,000,000,000 from 1 to 205,000 won; and (d) received 285,000,00 won,00 won,00 won.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1. The instant promissory note No. 1 was made for the purpose of securing that the Plaintiff borrowed 65 million won from the Defendant as gambling money. Since the act of lending money, which caused it, constitutes illegal consideration, constitutes illegal consideration, the instant authentic deed prepared to secure it, is also null and void, and therefore, it is based on the said authentic deed.