1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 12, 2014, in order to secure the payment of KRW 200,00,000 to the Defendant, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note with the issuer and D (representative director of the Plaintiff), the payee, the Defendant, the face value of KRW 300,000,000, the issue date, December 12, 2014, and the promissory note with the maturity date (hereinafter “the Promissory Notes”). On the same day, the said issuer issued a promissory note with the maturity date (hereinafter “the Promissory Notes”) to the Defendant on December 12, 2014 in C’s law firm No. 1910, the said issuer issued the Promissory Notes with the issuance and signature of the Promissory Notes, and, upon delay in the payment of the Promissory Notes to the holders of the Promissory Notes, the said issuer shall recognize that there is no objection even if subject to compulsory execution.”

B. On January 20, 2015, the Plaintiff fully repaid the Defendant the aforementioned loan amount of KRW 200,000,000 (hereinafter “existing loan”).

C. Since then, the Plaintiff again borrowed KRW 160,000,000 from the Defendant on January 23, 2015, and KRW 50,000,000 on February 11, 2015, and KRW 160,00,000 on August 12, 2015 (hereinafter “the instant loan”). The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to use the instant notarial deed as the title of the instant loan claim.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On January 20, 2015, the Plaintiff extinguished all the underlying claims of the Promissory Notes upon the Defendant’s repayment of KRW 200,000,000 in full. As such, the claim based on the Promissory Notes of this case (hereinafter “instant promissory Notes”) was extinguished, and accordingly, the notarial deed of this case, an executive title, became void.

B. Since then, the original defendant agreed to use the notarial deed of this case as the executive title of the loan claim of this case.