1. The Defendant’s KRW 200,000,000 as well as its annual 6% from June 26, 2016 to June 3, 2019, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant issued a promissory note on May 25, 2016, stating that "the amount of face value 200 million won, the plaintiff, the date of issuance May 25, 2016, the date of payment, June 25, 2016, the date of payment, and the place of payment, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City," respectively. On the same day, a notary public prepared and delivered a notarized bill to the plaintiff under No. 322 of the 2016 Deed No. 322 of the 2016 Deed No. D, and the fact that the plaintiff lawfully presented the said promissory note within the time limit for payment, but the payment was refused. The defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the above promissory note,

As to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is a loan creditor to E, and the issuance of the above promissory note and the preparation of the authentic deed of promissory note are merely conducted for E, and that the plaintiff and the defendant do not have the underlying claim of the above promissory note, so the defendant does not have the obligation

On the other hand, the plaintiff's claim for promissory notes of this case has the burden of proof against the defendant in case the defendant, who is the debtor, asserts the non-existence of the underlying claim as a ground of human defense. Thus, there is no evidence to prove that there is no underlying claim of the promissory notes of this case.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff legal interest and delay damages calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as stipulated by the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act from June 26, 2016 (the day following the due date of the payment of the Promissory Notes) to June 3, 2019 (the delivery date of the duplicate of the instant complaint), and 12% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is justified, and is so decided as per Disposition.