1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts constituting the premise of the dispute

A. The Defendant became aware of the company “C” through the Plaintiff around the end of 2014, and the Defendant recommended D to make an investment in C.

B. On February 5, 2015, the Plaintiff, along with E and F, issued to the Defendant a promissory note with the payee, the due date, March 31, 2015, and face value of 200 million won. On the same day, the Plaintiff drafted a notarial deed on the said note (No. 76 of the 2015 deed against a notary public, No. 76 of the 2015 deed).

C. D transferred KRW 10 million to the Defendant’s account on February 5, 2015, KRW 100 million on February 10, 2015, KRW 30 million on February 10, 2015, and KRW 30 million on February 11, 2015, and remitted KRW 100 million on February 11, 2015 to G’s account, the representative of C.

On February 6, 2015, the Defendant remitted KRW 100 million remitted to G, and, in addition, remitted to G the remittance of KRW 50 million on February 12, 2015, KRW 50 million on February 13, 2015, KRW 50 million on February 13, 2015, and KRW 250 million on March 16, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute or there is no clear dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 2, Eul evidence 3-1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant, E, and F prepared a notarial deed of promissory notes with D who actually pays investment funds as a creditor, and the Defendant as a creditor was written with the notarial deed of promissory notes.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of Promissory Notes, which was made by the Defendant, who is not an actual creditor, as a creditor, should not be permitted.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including all types of serial numbers) and the entire purport of the pleadings, the following facts and circumstances revealed are as follows: in the event a business failure is made, a notarial deed was prepared as a security to recover the principal invested by D in order to collect the principal.

However, as D cannot participate at the time of preparation of a notarial deed, the defendant is liable to return D's investment funds.