1. Promissory notes, No. 242, May 21, 2014, drawn up by the Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff on May 21, 2014.

1. The following facts are acknowledged as either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purpose of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 6, 10, and 1.

A. On June 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to commission the head of a branch (head office) and decided to work at the B branch (branch) according to the Defendant’s proposal.

B. On March 10, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a commission contract for insurance solicitors (hereinafter “instant commission contract”). Article 20 of the instant commission contract provides for the following:

Article 20 (Financial Guarantee)

1. An insurance solicitor shall, at the same time as a commissioning contract, submit to the company a performance guarantee insurance policy of not less than a specified amount with respect to the advance payment obligation expected to occur in the future;

2. Where it is impossible to submit a performance guarantee bond under the above paragraph (1) or where the performance guarantee insurance money fails to meet a certain amount required by the company, a person who has the financial guarantee for the conditions as determined by the company or a security shall be offered, and where necessary, a promissory note for security shall be issued and provided to the

3. Promissory notes for the foregoing check shall be deemed as notarized by the letter of payment undertaking providing to the company only when the obligation to return the advance payment allowance to be incurred in the future has occurred but such advance payment has not been returned.

C. Under the instant commission contract, the Plaintiff prepared a promissory note No. 30 million won in face value (hereinafter “instant authentic deed”) and delivered it to the Defendant.

On June 1, 2014, the conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was closed, and on September 9, 2015, the registration of the Plaintiff’s designer was revoked, and the instant commissioning contract was terminated.

E. There is no advance payment allowance to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, this is examined.