beta
Text
1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiffs has the executive force of No. 1212, 207.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Around December 3, 2006, Plaintiff A received KRW 5,000,000 from the “E” located in Jinju-si as a prepaid payment. On January 16, 2007, Plaintiff A moved the place of business to a news report office located in Busan (in the form of a job to go to the relevant entertainment office if a contact is made from a entertainment office after going to the place of business) and moved the place of business to a large number of nearby entertainment bars and sexual traffic.
B. When Plaintiff A could not refund KRW 2,00,000, out of the prepaid amount already paid to the “E” side in the process of moving the said news report office from the said “E,” Plaintiff A, on February 22, 2007, intended to borrow KRW 2,000,000 from the Defendant, and paid KRW 1,654,80,00 after deducting advance interest and document expenses. In that process, Plaintiff C, who worked in the news report office, such as Plaintiff A, entered into a joint and several guarantee agreement for the said loan obligation of Plaintiff A.
C. On May 3, 2007, the Defendant prepared a notarial deed with Plaintiff C, a joint and several surety, using documents, such as a certificate of personal seal impression, which was received in advance from Plaintiff A, with the maturity of KRW 2,00,000 for principal, May 3, 2007, interest rate of KRW 66% per annum, and the notarial deed with Plaintiff C (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), plaintiff A's personal examination result, the purport of the whole argument
2. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant and the loan of this case are used for the purpose of pre-paid payment premised on solicitation and good offices of prostitution. Thus, the loan of this case is null and void in violation of good morals and other social order, and compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case should be denied.
3. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, are the case where the Plaintiff was working in the “E” first and Busan.