청구이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The fact that: (a) the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 60 million from the Defendant on March 10, 2014, as C’s No. 100, and on November 2, 2013, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 25 million from the Defendant on March 31, 2014; and (b) the Plaintiff paid KRW 35 million up to March 31, 2014; and (c) the fact that, if the Plaintiff fails to perform his/her monetary obligation, the authentication document of a monetary loan agreement with the purport that compulsory execution is recognized (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) was written by December 30, 2014, is not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the overall purport of pleadings in the statement as set forth in subparagraph 1.
2. The judgment of the plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff imported coins equivalent to KRW 200 million from the plaintiff's trade name Eul operated by the plaintiff, and the defendant, who became aware of this, conspired with the plaintiff with the plaintiff for the purpose of removing the agreement money from D which was placed in the domestic law through the execution of seizure of the above paintings, the plaintiff prepared the notarial deed of this case in collusion with the plaintiff for the purpose of removing the agreement money, compulsory execution based thereon shall be denied.
There is no evidence to prove the facts as alleged by the Plaintiff.
Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in subparagraphs 1 through 9 above, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were in de facto marital relationship from April 201 to November 2013; the Plaintiff and the Defendant received economic support from the Defendant’s East F, and engaged in the business of importing and selling the products domestically produced in the name of F on April 12, 2011; the Plaintiff and the Defendant employed Chinese language D for Chinese language interpretation on June 2013; the Plaintiff were in dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as compared to D; the Plaintiff and the Defendant withdraw from the partnership relationship on November 2, 2013; the Plaintiff and the Defendant withdraw from the partnership relationship with the Defendant on the basis of the Plaintiff’s withdrawal on November 2, 2013; the Plaintiff’s personal expenses equivalent to KRW 80,000 and KRW 10,000,000,000,000 paid by the Defendant as part of the remainder.