beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On June 3, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) issued a promissory note with a face value of KRW 10 million at a law firm branch; (b) June 3, 2014; and (c) December 30, 2014; (c) issued a promissory note with a due date; and (d) made a notarial deed with the purport that, if delay in the payment of the said note is subject to compulsory execution, the said notary public shall commission the law firm to prepare a notarial deed by entrusting the said notary public with the preparation of a notarial deed.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. Determination as to the assertion that the issuance of the above promissory note and the purport of recognizing compulsory execution based thereon are invalid as an act of anti-social order is in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Code, since the issuance of the above promissory note and a notarial deed to the purport of recognizing compulsory execution based thereon constitutes “an act of receiving or promising to receive money, valuables or benefits with respect to acceptance of legal cases or legal affairs, and introducing, arranging, or inducing a specific attorney or his office staff,” under Article 34(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and thus, it is invalid as it constitutes an act of violation of Article 103 of the Civil Code.
(A) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s written reference after the closing of the argument in the instant case, based on the written reference submitted by the Defendant to this Court on December 19, 2017, the Defendant would be able to recognize the fact that the Defendant had been paid KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff in return for handling legal affairs. However, in light of the fact that the Defendant’s written reference is mainly the denial of the Plaintiff’s assertion, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant recognized the fact that the Defendant had been paid KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff in return for handling legal affairs in the said written reference.
After the issuance of the above Promissory Notes, the Defendant promised to pay 4.3 million won to the Plaintiff.