1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

On August 1, 2011, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with a face value of KRW 19,00,000,000, and made and issued the instant authentic deed.

On November 30, 2010, the plaintiff argued by the parties and the plaintiff's assertion that the notary public prepared a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement No. 725 of the 2010 deed at the interview of law firms with the intent to guarantee the defendant's obligation to the defendant.

However, as the above C did not repay its debts, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff’s lease deposit claims against the Korea Land and Housing Corporation based on the original copy of the above notarial deed.

Accordingly, on August 1, 201, the Plaintiff issued the instant promissory note to the Defendant to cancel the seizure and collection order of the said claim, and prepared the instant authentic deed.

Therefore, since the Promissory Notes of this case were issued under force majeure without any bonds and obligations between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case shall be denied.

Judgment

First, with respect to the assertion that there is no relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with respect to claims and obligations, there is no phrase “sureties” or “Guarantee” in the Promissory Notes of this case, but the Plaintiff itself acknowledges that the Plaintiff, on November 30, 2010, prepared a notarial deed of money loan contract with the intent to guarantee the Defendant’s obligation to the Defendant. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff issued the Promissory Notes of this case to substitute the said notarial deed and prepared the notarial deed of this case.

Therefore, the circumstance asserted by the Plaintiff alone is that the Promissory Notes were issued without any cause and thus cannot be deemed null and void. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

Next, the Promissory Notes of this case are valid.