beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiffs is on the No. 330 No. 330 of the No. 2014’s No. 330 of the D Deed.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. (1) On May 15, 2014, the Network E issued to the Defendant a promissory note No. 330 of the No. 2014, the face value of which was KRW 100 million, and the due date of which was May 14, 2015. On the same day, upon the request of the Deceased, a notary public drafted a promissory note No. 330 of the No. 2014 (hereinafter “No. 330 of the Promissory Notes”).
The plaintiff B, on the same day, issued three copies of the promissory note No. 331, 332, and 333 on the same day, respectively, to the defendant, each of the face value of which is KRW 60 million, KRW 100 million, and KRW 40 million, and the due date of which is May 14, 2015. Upon the commission of the plaintiff B, the Promissory note No. 331, 332, and 333 on the same day was written.
B. The deceased on May 12, 2018, and the Plaintiffs and Non-Party F reported the inheritance-limited approval by this court on June 29, 2018, and on October 17, 2018, the deceased on May 12, 2018, the Plaintiff and Non-Party F reported the inheritance-limited approval by this court.
C. On the other hand, on July 6, 2018, the Defendant issued an execution clause to succeed to the instant promissory note No. 155, and on August 22, 2018, issued a collection order as to the Plaintiffs’ claim attachment and collection order as to the compensation that the Plaintiffs received from the G Financial Cooperative under the District Court Decision 2018TT 6029.
[Evidence A] Evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5
2. The parties' assertion
A. (i) The Plaintiff E redeems the Promissory Notes to the Defendant on July 30, 2015, and thus, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of Promissory Notes is not permissible.
Shebly, the compulsory execution should be allowed only within the scope of the property inherited from the plaintiffs' net E.
B. The Defendant lent KRW 300 million to the network E around March 7, 2013, and KRW 200 million around October 8, 2013, and paid KRW 200 million on or around May 14, 2014, and issued the Promissory Notes with respect to KRW 100 million out of the remaining KRW 300 million, and issued the Promissory Notes with respect to KRW 200 million from Plaintiff B as a joint and several surety.