1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On February 10, 2015, the Plaintiff seeks payment of the amount of the Promissory Notes issued by the Plaintiff.

The issue date of a promissory note is one of the requirements for a promissory note, and the rights under a promissory note cannot be duly established without any specification. Thus, in the case of a promissory note payable on a fixed date with the maturity date, if the maturity date is expressed as one of the requirements for a promissory note, the requirements for a promissory note are inconsistent with each other and thus, it shall be deemed null and void. Accordingly, it shall be deemed null and void. In other words, the fact other than a promissory note shall be investigated to supplement or correct the error in the description of a part of the promissory note.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da59682 Decided April 25, 200). According to the above legal principles, according to Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant issued and delivered to the plaintiff on February 10, 2015 a promissory note with the maturity of KRW 5 million at face value, the maturity of which is December 10, 2015, and the maturity of which is February 10, 2015. The above promissory note is null and void as a promissory note with the maturity of February 10, 2015, and it cannot be viewed otherwise on the ground that the defendant merely made a mistake on the part of the date of issuance and maturity of which the maturity is earlier than the date of issuance. Thus, the defendant is not obligated to pay the above promissory note to the plaintiff.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair as it is concluded differently.