beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, No. 786, Nov. 7, 2014, No. 2014.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff, who is the most married with C, was the representative of D, and was the Defendant around October 2012, and became the internal relationship with the Defendant from around October 2016 to around October 2016.
B. On September 19, 2014, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a promissory note amounting to KRW 180 million at the face value as of September 19, 2014, with the due date as of September 19, 2014. On the same day, a notary public prepared a promissory note No. 696 on the 2014 No. 3010, Nov. 7, 2014, and issued a new promissory note No. 500,000 (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) to the Defendant with the due date as of March 31, 2015. On the same day, a notary public newly issued a promissory note No. 7866 (hereinafter “instant promissory note No. 4”).
C. Based on the instant promissory note No. 107, H apartment owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction of real estate with the claimed amount of KRW 300 million at KRW 801,00,000 owned by Yongsan-gu, Seoul, Yongsan-gu, F, and G, and received a decision to commence compulsory auction on November 10, 201
(Seoul Western District Court I). [Grounds for Recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 (including the serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The plaintiff's assertion that compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case should not be permitted for the following reasons.
In the meantime, the Promissory Notes of this case was prepared by threatening the Plaintiff and demanding the payment of money by threatening the Plaintiff to know the Plaintiff’s wife that the Plaintiff had been in an internal relationship with the Defendant with the intent to adjust the internal relationship with the Defendant. The issuance of the Promissory Notes of this case is null and void, as it is contrary to the public order and good morals, and there is no causal relationship between the Defendant and the Defendant, and even if it does not constitute null and void, the Plaintiff’s coercion.