beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 12, 2017, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note No. 357 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) to the Defendant with respect to the said promissory note as a document written by a notary public No. 357 on the 2017 Date C, respectively, at the ordinary south-do, the payment date, the payment date, the payment date, and the place of payment, respectively. As to the said promissory note, the Plaintiff prepared and issued to the Defendant a notarized deed of promissory note No. 357 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).
B. Based on the notarial deed of this case, the Defendant: (a) requested the Ulsan District Court 2018TTB to order the seizure and collection order of KRW 7,351,000 of the amount claimed under the U.S. District Court 2018TBC 201974 with respect to the claims, such as the deposit against the Plaintiff and the third debtor; and (b) received the seizure and collection order of KRW 7,347,000 on April 2, 2018; and (c) around that time, the Defendant collected KRW 7,347,00 in total from D Co., Ltd.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, each entry of Eul 7, the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. The assertion and judgment
A. Each of the parties' arguments 1) The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion would provide support for KRW 26,500,000,000 when the plaintiff was supplied exclusively from the defendant, and that the defendant notarized a promissory note of KRW 26,00,000 in face value, but the defendant lent only KRW 6,50,000 to the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff repaid KRW 6,00,000 among them, the defendant's claim balance is only KRW 50,000. Nevertheless, the defendant collected KRW 7,351,000 on the basis of the notarial deed of this case. Since the defendant's assertion that the difference between the claim balance of KRW 6,851,00 is unjust enrichment, the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff is obligated to return the above amount to the plaintiff's unjust enrichment. 2) The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff accepted the above amount from F in lieu of "E", and the plaintiff paid KRW 3,000,00,00.