1.(a)

The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is a promissory note No. 331 drawn up by the law firm's rate.

Basic Facts

Around 2012, the Defendant signed a business agreement with the Plaintiff, the representative of which, C (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) operated “D” and the Nonparty Company, providing the Plaintiff with a subsidy of KRW 10 million under the name of office and classology, lending vehicle purchase funds, and having the Plaintiff and its employees exclusively use the installment financing of the Nonparty Company.

On May 11, 2012, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) at a face value of KRW 50 million to the Defendant for the purpose of securing loans under the instant business agreement. On the same day, the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed to recognize that the instant promissory note is subject to compulsory execution (hereinafter “notarial deed”).

On July 8, 2014, the Defendant remitted KRW 49 million to the account under the name of E, ASEAN, and transferred KRW 48.5 million out of the said money to F, who was provided with the office from the Defendant on the same day, and G wired KRW 49 million to the account under the name of E on the 11st day of the same month, and remitted KRW 48.7 million out of the said money to F on the same day.

On October 10, 2014, on the basis of the instant notarial deed, the Defendant received the Suwon District Court’s order of seizure and collection of the claim(2014TTTB2868) against the Plaintiff’s bank, the National Bank of Korea, the Nonghyup Bank, the Nonghyup Bank, and the new bank (the total of KRW 50 million, each claim amount of KRW 12.5 million). Accordingly, the Defendant collected KRW 12.5 million around that time.

[Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion of the Plaintiff as to the grounds of claim as to Gap’s non-contentious facts, Gap’s evidence Nos. 3 through 5, 8, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the grounds of claim as to the whole of pleadings. The Plaintiff demanded the suspension of transaction to F, an employee of the Defendant, on the ground that there was a high interest rate while trading a loan with the Defendant for purchase of automobiles from December 2012. The non-party company is for two years after the settlement of accounts for existing loans