청구이의
1. Promissory notes No. 104 dated January 28, 201, prepared by C’s joint office with the Defendant’s Plaintiff as a notary public against the Plaintiff by the Defendant, No. 104.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff recommended the Defendant to make an investment in door-to-door sales business, such as health food, stem cell cosmetics, enzymes, etc. manufactured by the Plaintiff’s citizens, and received an investment amount of KRW 11,60,000 in total from the Defendant on January 28, 201.
B. On January 28, 201, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with a face value of KRW 12,500,00,000 at sight, and due date. In the event of delay in the payment of the instant promissory note, the Plaintiff, as a joint office of C notary public No. 104 (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”), signed and issued a notarial deed with a view to recognizing that there is no objection even if it is immediately subject to compulsory execution.
C. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 10,00,000,000 on November 7, 201, and KRW 2,925,00 on December 5, 201.
On July 11, 2014, based on the instant notarial deed, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) with respect to all the claims of the Plaintiff against the Bank and two other financial institutions, as the court 2014TT No. 13378, based on the instant notarial deed. The instant collection order was served on each of the above financial institutions around that time.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, since the execution obligation of the notarial deed of this case, which is an executive title to secure the return of the investment funds to the Doluri, has ceased to exist by the Plaintiff’s repayment, it may seek a denial of compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case.
3. The defendant defenses to the effect that the defendant agreed to use the notarial deed of this case drawn up at the time of investment in No. 100,000 in order to guarantee the loss of investment in D, a door-to-door sales business that is different from the plaintiff.