1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) was established on May 31, 199 and engaged in wholesale and retail business.

The Plaintiff is the father of D (the representative director of C from May 31, 199 to November 23, 2015), the father of E (the director of C) (the director of C) who was appointed as the inside director of C on June 4, 2009, and the head of the E (the director of C) who was employed as the representative director from November 24, 2015 and died on March 21, 2016 (hereinafter “the deceased”).

As the representative director of F, the defendant is a person who discounts the number of shares of C over several times while trading the brokerage brokerage of fishery products between C and C.

B. On October 20, 2014, the Defendant received a check number list (the check number P; hereinafter “the check number No. 1”) from the Deceased, the par value of KRW 500 million, and the date of payment on October 20, 2015, and paid to the Deceased KRW 46 million remaining after deducting the pre-paid interest from KRW 54 million.

C. On October 20, 2014, the Deceased and K (the deceased’s father’s father and the deceased’s wife) were prepared and delivered by a notary public to the Defendant, and a promissory note No. 1448 of the 2014 document (hereinafter “instant promissory note No. 148”) prepared by N by a law firm (with limited liability) was attached to the said notarial deed. The said notarial deed was accompanied by a promissory note No. 50 million won of face value, the issue date, the issue date of the notarial deed, and the deceased and K, stating “The notarial deed”.

On March 22, 2016, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff at the funeral hall of the Deceased, and the Plaintiff, as the representative of the Plaintiff, to pay one set of per unit ( check number H, face value KRW 500 million, G Co., Ltd. for the place of payment, and date of payment, March 23, 2016; hereinafter “second unit number table”) indicated as the issuer, but the Plaintiff refused this.

E. At around 15:00 on March 23, 2016, the Defendant again demanded the Plaintiff to settle the second unit number table at the Plaintiff’s office.

The plaintiff rejected and reversed it, and paid the second unit price table of this case at the defendant's request.