1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On February 27, 2014, the Plaintiff drafted a notarial deed No. 266 of the 2014 Deed (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) against the Defendant, stating that “The Plaintiff shall repay each of the KRW 200 million on December 31, 2014, and KRW 1100 million on August 31, 2015, and in the event of non-performance, a notary public shall accept compulsory execution.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant lent money to C acquired through the introduction of the plaintiff, but was not repaid.

On February 2014, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to prepare documents in the name of the Plaintiff as to the claim against the Plaintiff as “to have a match”, and the Plaintiff prepared the instant notarial deed without knowing the details thereof.

As such, the plaintiff prepared the notarial deed of this case by means of a false conspiracy, false representation, or false representation, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case shall not be permitted.

3. We examine the judgment, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff prepared the notarial deed of this case by either a false declaration of intent or a declaration of intention not to be the plaintiff's truth, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the plaintiff was affixed on February 20, 2014, stating that "the plaintiff borrowed KRW 310 million from the defendant around March 2006, and repaid KRW 100 million on December 31, 2014, and KRW 110 million on August 31, 2015," and that "the plaintiff made a guarantee and issued a promissory note against the defendant as to the amount of damages to the defendant" on October 5, 2015.