1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the portion added to the following:

2. On the fourth and fourth sides of the judgment of the first instance, the following shall be added to the addition:

On November 14, 2014, the Defendant issued a promissory note with the face value of KRW 600 million and the due date of November 21, 2014 and prepared notarial deeds (Evidence 33-2). The Defendant also issued a promissory note with the face value of KRW 600 million and the due date of May 23, 2016 to the Plaintiff on May 23, 2016 (Evidence 34) and written a written statement of performance (Evidence 34). The Defendant asserts that the Defendant exempted the Plaintiff from the obligation. Even if the obligor delivers a promissory note to the obligee upon delivery of the existing obligation to the obligee, it is presumed that the existing obligation continues to exist and, barring any special circumstance, it is presumed that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the existing obligation under the promissory note was delivered to the Plaintiff without extinguishing the existing obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 196Da16058, May 16, 2016).

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.