beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is on the notarial deed No. 960 of 2012, 2012, signed on December 26, 2012.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From August 2012, the Plaintiff had worked as a general manager of D Co., Ltd. from around August 2012, and the Defendant jointly operated the said company with E.
B. On December 26, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) entrusted the Defendant with the Justice-at-law attorney-at-law in charge of the authentication in charge of the authentication in C, and (b) completed and delivered, on December 26, 2012, the 2012 deed No. 960 of the 2012 document stating that “The Defendant lent KRW 40,000,000 to the Plaintiff (20% on January 15, 2013 during the repayment period, interest without delay, and delay damages rate); and (c) the Plaintiff, if the Plaintiff did not perform it, is aware that there is no objection even if he/she is immediately subject to compulsory execution.”
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that the compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case should not be denied since he did not actually borrow KRW 40,000,000 from the defendant with respect to the Notarial Deed of this case. The defendant asserted that since the defendant had no choice but to sell the Notarial Deed of this case by receiving KRW 40,000,000 for the shares invested in the original company, he had no choice but to do so, the plaintiff still had a loan claim of KRW 40,00,000 for the plaintiff.
B. On the other hand, in a lawsuit of demurrer, the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection in the lawsuit of demurrer is in accordance with the principle of allocation of the burden of proof in the general civil procedure. In a case where the plaintiff asserts that he did not establish the defendant's claim, he is liable to prove
(see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852, Jun. 24, 2010). However, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff still has a claim of KRW 40,000,000, and the Defendant did not submit any evidence to acknowledge the fact of the lease, and the time, place, and details of the lease.