1. The judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.

A. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff on November 201, 2019.

1. On November 20, 2019, the Plaintiff drafted, to the Defendant on November 20, 2019, a promissory note process certificate (No. 209, 2019, hereinafter “Fair Deed”) issued by a notary public, the Plaintiff, the payee, the Defendant, the amount of KRW 110,000,000, and the payment period of KRW 110,000,00.

【Reasons for Recognition Gap’s Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although the Plaintiff did not bear any obligation against the Defendant, the Plaintiff prepared the instant fair deed at the Defendant’s request.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the instant fair deed must be rejected.

B. Defendant 1’s payment to the Defendant

(2) Of the Plaintiff’s repayment of KRW 112,871,843, total amount of KRW 112,871,843, which the Defendant lent to the Plaintiff, KRW 10,000,00 among the Defendant’s repayment of KRW 112,871,843, which the Defendant repaid to D (hereinafter “Non-Party Company”) on behalf of the Defendant, set up a fair deed of this case on the ground that the Plaintiff would reimburse the Defendant (the Defendant is on the third pleading date of the trial, but the above claim is not claimed against the Plaintiff on the third pleading date of the trial.

3. The Plaintiff bears the burden of proving the existence of the cause of the issuance of a promissory note in a lawsuit claiming objection in accordance with the principle of allocation of the burden of proof in a general civil procedure. However, the Defendant is liable to prove the fact of the cause of the claim where the Plaintiff asserted that the claim was not constituted by the Defendant, on the other hand, the circumstance that there is no relationship between the issuance of a promissory note in the claim for a promissory note does not exist (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da87595, Aug. 18, 2017). Therefore, the Plaintiff is liable to prove the existence of the cause of the issuance of a promissory note in the lawsuit claiming a claim against the promissory note’s fair deed (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da23578, Jul. 9, 2004). 209.