beta
Text
1. Promissory notes drawn up by the Defendant’s notary public with No. 1881, No. 1881, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 4, 2015, the Plaintiffs issued to the Defendant a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with a face value of KRW 300 million at the face value, the Defendant, the place of issuance, the place of payment, and the place of payment, respectively, at each Council city, on December 4, 2015, the date of issuance, and on March 15, 2016, and on the same day, the Defendant and the notary public drafted a notarial deed (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) stating the purport of recognizing compulsory execution under Article 181 of the Multisour Deed 2015.
B. On March 28, 2016, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order as to the claim for sales of credit cards from Plaintiff A’s Non-FC Card Co., Ltd. and five other parties, as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016TTT Co., Ltd., and received a seizure and collection order as to the claim for sales of credit cards incurred in the future. On April 12, 2016, the Defendant received a compulsory auction order as to the Plaintiff’s real estate owned by the Plaintiff E as the same court, and on April 28, 2016, issued a collection order as to the Plaintiff’s deposit claim against Plaintiff C, Non-FF Co., Ltd. and four other parties, as Seoul East District Court Decision 2016TTF48
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3-1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The Plaintiffs asserted 1) purchased real estate owned by F from F, the Defendant’s subsidiaries, on December 4, 2015, and issued the Promissory Notes to the Defendant for the payment of some of the down payment. However, the Plaintiff’s entry of the addressee of the Promissory Notes as the Defendant, who was not F, is merely merely a borrowing of the Defendant’s name from F, for the purpose of avoiding the compulsory execution by the National Tax Service (the Plaintiff’s assertion is with the purport that the issuance of the Promissory Notes in this case is invalid due to false conspiracy. The National Tax Service seized and collects F’s claims against F, and thus, the Plaintiffs are obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the instant Promissory Notes to the National Tax Service.