1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On October 14, 201, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with the Plaintiff, the issuer, the face value of KRW 120,00,000, and the issue date of October 14, 201, and the due date of November 2, 2011, and issued it to the Defendant. On the same day, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entrusted a law firm citizen with the preparation of a notarial deed, and accordingly a notary public, signed a notarial deed (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the intent to recognize compulsory execution.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff Defendant invested KRW 120,000,000 in the business related to the sale of Ansan-si apartment (hereinafter “instant business”) and borrowed the Plaintiff’s name.

The Plaintiff, upon the request of the Defendant and D, lent the name of the contract related to the instant business, secured that KRW 120,000,000, which the Defendant remitted to the Plaintiff, is paid to E, etc. under the instant business-related contract. The actual right holder of the instant business-related contract was the evidentiary document that is not the Plaintiff but the Defendant, and only prepared and executed the instant notarial deed to the Defendant.

Therefore, the Promissory Notes of this case is issued without cause, and there is no obligation of the plaintiff against the defendant, so compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case should be denied.

B. The party who invested in the business of this case is the plaintiff, and the defendant did not borrow the name in relation to the business of this case from the plaintiff. Upon the plaintiff's request, the defendant lent KRW 120,000 to the plaintiff, and for the payment, the notarial deed of this case was prepared.

3. According to the reasoning of the evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the Plaintiff’s household out of the Ansan-si Apartment Co., Ltd. in relation to the instant business from October 12, 201, together with F.