1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is a law firm C, 2008 No. 1139, Dec. 24, 2008.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 24, 2008, the Plaintiff issued and delivered to the Defendant a promissory note with the face value of KRW 123,000,000 at face value, and both the issuer, the payee, the Defendant, the Defendant, the date of payment at sight, the place of payment, the place of payment, and the place of payment at Ansan City (hereinafter “instant promissory note”).

B. On December 24, 2008, with respect to the Promissory Notes of this case, a notary public, on December 24, 2008, drafted a notarial deed stating the purport of acceptance of compulsory execution by Law Firm C on December 24, 2008 (hereinafter “this case’s notarial deed”).

C. Based on the instant notarial deed, the Defendant received a collection order for the seizure and collection of the claim (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) under the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch Branch 2009TTTT195, and on August 26, 2009, received dividends of KRW 1,732,592 in the distribution procedure of the instant distribution procedure (hereinafter “instant distribution procedure”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. As to the assertion of non-performance of obligation, the Plaintiff asserted that “The Promissory Notes and Notarial Deed were prepared in advance before the Defendant promised to lend money to the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant did not lend money to the Plaintiff, the obligation of the Promissory Notes did not exist. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case should not be permitted.” (ii) The act of the Promissory Notes should be dealt with separately from the underlying relationship of the receipt of the Promissory Notes as an unmanned act and the act of the Promissory Notes should be treated separately from the underlying relationship of the receipt of the Promissory Notes. Since the Promissory Notes and Notarial Deed of this case are securities representing rights under the Promissory Notes regardless of the underlying relationship, the holder of the Promissory Notes can exercise rights

Supreme Court Decision 96Da52649 delivered on July 25, 1997, Supreme Court Decision 96Da52649 delivered on May 25, 1998