배당이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, either in dispute between the parties or in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4 (including each number, if any).
On June 19, 2015, the Agricultural Partnership D (formerly, Mutual Farming Partnership E; hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Corporation”) issued to the Plaintiff a promissory note in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, each of the place of issue, place of payment, and place of payment. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 26357, Jun. 25, 2015>
On the same day, the non-party company and the Plaintiff entrusted the Plaintiff with the preparation of a notarial deed stating that no objection is raised even if the non-party company, which is a notary public, delays the payment of the amount of the promissory note to the Plaintiff. The notary public, one of the law firms, drafted a notarial deed with the above content as 190 on the 2015 deed.
On July 6, 2015, based on the executory exemplification of the above notarial deed, the Plaintiff was issued a seizure and collection order against KRW 75,200,000,000 among the non-party corporation’s claims for the compensation for the relief station against Leecheon-si, as the Suwon District Court Branch of Suwon Branch of 2015TTB829.
B. On February 5, 2015, Nonparty Company issued to the Defendant a promissory note with a face value of KRW 250 million at a face value, the payee, the Defendant, the due date at sight, the place of issue, the place of payment, and the place of payment, respectively.
On March 2, 2015, the non-party company and the defendant entrusted the non-party company with the preparation of a notarial deed stating that no objection is raised even if the non-party company delays the payment of the amount of the promissory note to the defendant, in the case of delay in the payment of the amount of the promissory note to the non-party company. The notary public drafted a notarial deed with the content of the above notarial deed No. 47 in 2015.
On March 17, 2015, the Plaintiff, based on the executory exemplification of the said notarial deed, is Nonparty 2015TT498.