1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of litigation are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 9, 2011, the Plaintiff invested KRW 500 million in C and C, and the Plaintiff, “D” produced by C (hereinafter “C”) for a fixed period of three months of investment. However, on May 8, 2011, C entered into an investment contract with the purport that the Plaintiff shall pay the Plaintiff the total amount of principal and earnings KRW 537,50,000 (hereinafter “instant investment contract”). The Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the said amount.

B. However, on August 7, 2014, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a promissory note as of September 7, 2014 (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with the Plaintiff’s obligee, the Plaintiff’s obligee, the face value of KRW 200 million, and the due date. On August 7, 2014, a notary public drafted a notarial deed as of August 239, 2014 with respect to the said promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the assertion C did not pay part of the obligations under the instant investment contract.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff, a joint and several surety under the investment contract of this case, determined the unpaid amount of KRW C under the investment contract of this case as KRW 200,000,000, and issued the Promissory Notes in order to secure the Defendant’s obligations under the agreement.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff according to the aforementioned new agreement, namely, the relationship between the cause of the issuance of the Promissory Notes.

B. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that there exists a new agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as asserted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

As long as the Defendant already guaranteed C’s debt under the instant investment contract, the possibility that the instant promissory note was made for the security of the obligation under the said investment contract may be excluded.