1. The Defendant’s KRW 270,000,000 as well as 6% per annum from February 24, 2015 to August 12, 2015, and the following.

1. On November 7, 2014, the Defendant issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with a face value of KRW 300 million at its face value, KRW 7,000,00 of the issuance date, November 10, 2014, and the payment date (limited date) on December 10, 2014, and both the place of payment and the place of payment, and the place of issue, to the Plaintiff may either have no dispute between the parties, or may be recognized by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole, as stated in the evidence No. 3.

Meanwhile, it is apparent that the Plaintiff sought the payment of the Promissory Notes attached to the Promissory Notes in filing an application for the instant payment order. The Plaintiff is a person who already received KRW 30 million out of the face value of the Promissory Notes.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 270 million ( KRW 300 million-30 million) and delay damages therefrom, which the Plaintiff seeks, out of the Promissory Notes in this case.

2. Judgment on the defense

A. C and/or D, the representative of the defendant, issued the instant promissory note to the effect that the Plaintiff would delay the implementation of the project through civil petition filing, in an imminent situation where the housing construction project is being implemented.

The issuance of the Promissory Notes in this case is null and void due to a juristic act that substantially loses fairness in the status of the Defendant Company’s poor.

In addition, since the promissory note of this case was issued by the plaintiff's coercion, the defendant is revoked pursuant to Article 110 (1) of the Civil Code.

B. 1) From October 2013 to October 2013, the Defendant’s apartment building project (hereinafter “instant apartment building project”) on the land outside Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seoan-gu, and 25 lots including land owned by the Ministry of National Defense (hereinafter “instant apartment building project”).

(2) In the process of promoting the project, the Defendant was notified of the completion of the urban planning deliberation and the conformity of the project with the competent authority. On May 21, 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract for construction works on the instant apartment building project with Hyundai Industrial Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment building project”). (2) The Plaintiff on October 22, 2014.