청구이의
1. A notary public belonging to the defendant's Daegu District Public Prosecutor's Office against the plaintiff on August 16, 2016 who belongs to the defendant's Daegu District Public Prosecutor's Office.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant is a company operating an insurance agency business, and the Plaintiff is a person who served in the Defendant Company as an insurance solicitor from October 2015 to October 2016.
B. On August 16, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a authentic deed of promissory notes of KRW 120,000,000 in preparation for the Plaintiff’s occurrence of the Plaintiff’s obligation to refund fees.
(No. 537, No. 537, No. 2016, No. 2010, No. 10000, No. 10000, No. 20000,
On March 18, 2019, the Defendant seized the instant corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff as Goyang-do Branch of the Jung-gu District Court on March 18, 2019 with the title of execution.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. Since a notarial deed does not have res judicata unlike the final and conclusive judgment, in cases where an executive title is a notarial deed, the grounds such as failure to establish or nullify the claims mentioned therein may be asserted in the lawsuit of objection to the notarial deed (Articles 59(3) and 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act), and the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection in the lawsuit of objection to the claim shall also be in accordance with the principle of allocation of the burden of proof in general civil procedure.
Therefore, if the plaintiff asserts that the claim was not constituted by the defendant in a lawsuit claiming objection against a notarial deed, the defendant is liable to prove the cause of the claim.
B. In light of the above legal principles, according to the evidence Nos. 2, 2, and 1 through 3 of this case, the defendant paid insurance solicitation fees to the plaintiff during the period of service, and the fact that the defendant should return part of the fees already paid to the defendant when the insurance solicitor belonging to the defendant retires from his company. However, the defendant appears to have sent the documents in which the return fee was KRW 5,918,938 to the plaintiff, and the fees collected and submitted by the plaintiff.