beta
Text
1. Certificates drawn up by the Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, No. 413, 201.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The Plaintiff and the Defendant jointly operated the restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from July 201 to July 2013.
On July 4, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) issued to the Defendant a promissory note No. 150 million won in face value; (b) the date of issuance; (c) July 4, 2011; and (d) July 31, 2013. A notary public drafted and issued a promissory note No. 413, stating that “When the payment of the promissory note is delayed, no objection is raised even if it is immediately enforced” (hereinafter referred to as “notarial deed of this case”).
[Ground] In the event of absence of dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, and a payment order for which legal principles related to the purport of the whole pleadings have become final and conclusive, the grounds for failure or invalidation that occurred prior to the issuance of the payment order may be asserted in the lawsuit of objection against the payment order. The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection in the lawsuit of objection shall also be in accordance with the principle of allocation of burden of proof in general civil procedure.
Therefore, in a lawsuit of demurrer against a claim for a final and conclusive payment order, where the plaintiff claims that the defendant's claim had not been constituted, the defendant is liable to prove the cause of the claim, and where the plaintiff claims facts that fall under the disability or cause of extinction of the right, such as the invalidity or extinguishment of the claim as a false declaration of prior agreement
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852 Decided June 24, 2010). Such legal doctrine is also the same in the lawsuit of demurrer against a claim regarding a notarial deed.
Judgment
In light of the following circumstances, the fact that there is no dispute between the parties to the claim which is the cause of the deed of promissory notes of this case and the fact that the whole purport of the argument is added to the result of the defendant