청구이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the following facts: Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings, and there is no counter-proof.
On September 24, 2008, the Plaintiff prepared and issued to the Defendant a notarial deed of promissory note amounting to KRW 50,000,000 at par value (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) at No. 1392 of the Cjoint Law Office No. 2008.
B. On September 7, 2011, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order based on the No. 1 notarial deed of this case as the case of the Chuncheon District Court 201TTTT 3667 and the seizure and collection order of the claim.
C. On November 10, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application for commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures with the Chuncheon District Court 201 Docheon District Court 15146 case.
On November 29, 2011, the Plaintiff drafted and issued to the Defendant a notarial deed of promissory note amounting to KRW 50,000,000 at a face value of 1451,00,000 (hereinafter “instant No. 2 notarial deed, and the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff’s seal affixed to the notarial deed No. 2 notarial deed, but no evidence exists to acknowledge it).
E. On February 13, 2012, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order based on the No. 2 notarial deed of this case, as the case of the Chuncheon District Court 2012TTTTT 354 and the collection order.
F. On April 18, 2012, the Plaintiff sent a written note to the Defendant that he/she would be repaid as principal. On April 30, 2012, the Plaintiff sent a written note to the Defendant that he/she would be repaid as a principal.
G. On April 25, 2012, the Plaintiff was decided to commence individual rehabilitation procedures in Chuncheon District Court Decision 2011 15146.
H. On May 25, 2012, the Plaintiff submitted a draft repayment plan including the debt amounting to 30,000,000 to the Defendant, and on August 9, 2012, the draft repayment plan was authorized.
2. Determination
A. The plaintiff's assertion No. 1. of this case