The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

The request of the applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that on May 25, 1996, the Defendant: (a) agreed to pay KRW 550 million to the Defendant by the victim C, who is one’s female, for the payment of the agreed amount; (b) the victim agreed to pay KRW 550,000,000 at face value to secure the above agreed amount obligations; (c) the date of issuance; (d) the issuer C (victim) and the Defendant issued a promissory note to “I (Defendant)” to secure the above agreed amount; (e) notwithstanding the absence of the fact that the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the victim on July 9, 2004; and (e) filed an application for a public announcement with the Defendant for the payment of KRW 50,00,000 with the Defendant; and (e) the trial was served with the procedure of the public announcement; and (e) the Defendant became subject to the delivery of the judgment to the Defendant on January 28, 2005.

On December 24, 2014, around 10 years ago, on the ground of the above judgment in favor of the defendant, the defendant filed a compulsory application for commencement of auction on the real estate owned by the victim (Da, etc., Chungcheongnam-gun), and the victim filed an appeal to the above judgment (Seoul High Court 2015Na2036). The defendant, in the above appellate trial, agreed with the victim to receive KRW 550 million from the injured party on May 25, 1996, along with the previous argument that the defendant agreed to receive KRW 550 million from the injured party on the payment of KRW 10 million from the injured party, he received a promissory note from the injured party as collateral, and submitted a promissory note as evidence, and as such, he received a delivery from the injured party of the promissory note.

However, the victim did not have agreed to pay KRW 50 million to the defendant, and the above promissory note was provided as a blank note at the request of the mutual credit depository of the Dong department (the current Dong Savings Bank; hereinafter referred to as the "Dongbu Savings Bank") around September 24, 1993 at the time when the defendant was granted a loan from the Dongbu Mutual Credit Depository of the Dong department Co., Ltd. (the current Dongbu Savings Bank, hereinafter referred to as the "Dongbu Mutual Credit Depository"), and was filled with the above contents.