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. Basic facts

A. A. Around June 2014, a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) was drawn up as of June 29, 2014, with a face value of KRW 150,000,000, the issuer, the Plaintiff, D, E, the addressee, the Defendant, and the date of issuance.

The Plaintiff affixed his seal imprint on the issuer column of the Promissory Notes.

(Plaintiffs’ briefs dated March 23, 2016). (b)

C A joint office of notary public prepared, with respect to the Promissory Notes in this case, a promissory note No. 705 on September 29, 2014 (hereinafter “notarial deed in this case”). The said notarial deed contains the name of the plaintiff and E as the client (the issuer), and the name of the defendant as the client (the beneficiary and the agent of the issuer).

In the letter of delegation attached to the notarial deed of this case, the Plaintiff’s seal imprints the Plaintiff’s seal imprint, and the Plaintiff’s seal imprints on June 30, 2014.

C. Meanwhile, among the issuers of the Promissory Notes, D, one of the issuers of the Promissory Notes, is not indicated as the client of the Notarial Deed of this case.

【Fact-finding without dispute over the ground for recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1-1 through 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the joint issuers, around June 2014, concluded that the Plaintiff need to pay KRW 100 million to the Defendant in order to prevent the auction of the site located in G at the time of Pakistan, and that “if the Plaintiff and the joint issuers lend KRW 150 million to the Defendant, they shall thereafter pay KRW 150 million.”

Accordingly, the Defendant stated that “the documents necessary for the preparation of the authentic deed of promissory notes in the amount of KRW 150,000,000 shall be changed”.

The Plaintiff and joint issuers have affixed their seals to the Promissory Notes in this case according to the Defendant’s statement, and prepared documents necessary for notarial acts and delivered them to the Defendant.

At the time, the original issuer of the Promissory Notes was D who operated the G land business, and the Defendant was to put up a joint and several surety, and the Plaintiff and E affixed their seals on the Promissory Notes in a joint and several sureties sense.

However, KRW 100 million as the Defendant promised.