1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. Upon D’s loan request, the Defendant lent KRW 180 million to D’s deposit account on September 21, 2007; KRW 100 million on October 4, 2007; KRW 50 million on October 5, 2007; and KRW 100 million on November 19, 2007; and KRW 30 million on November 19, 2007, by remitting KRW 180 million to D’s deposit account.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

D on February 2, 2009, when the above loans were not repaid, issued a promissory note with the face value of KRW 180 million to the Defendant on February 2, 2009, the date of issuance, February 2, 2009, July 30, 2009, the date of payment, July 30, 2009, the joint issuer, the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”), and issued a proxy letter as to the preparation of the authentic deed with the mandator, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s personal seal impression.

At the time D made a written statement to the Defendant that KRW 180,000,000 related to the issuance of the Promissory Notes of this case would be 1.5% per month from October 2008 to July 30, 2009, and the next day would be 2% per month from the following day.

C. On May 26, 2009, the Defendant: (a) entrusted the preparation of a notarial deed with the Plaintiff and D’s commissioned agent as the principal at the notary public’s office using the power of attorney and the certificate of personal seal impression received from D; and (b) completed the notarial deed of this case stated in the purport of the claim

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3-1, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion D purchased 109 commercial buildings located in Young-gu, Young-gu, Young-si I from the Defendant and agreed to take over the Defendant’s obligation of KRW 180 million, which the Defendant borrowed on the basis of the above commercial building as security. On February 2, 2009, when the Defendant failed to perform the above acquisition procedure, he/she prepared at the law firm width office a deed of promissory notes in the amount of KRW 180,000,000 as part of the above loan amount of KRW 180,000,000, and as requested by the Defendant, the Plaintiff as a joint issuer.