beta
Text
1. A notary public against the Plaintiff by the Defendant on April 22, 2016 No. 176 of C Law Firm.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 5, 2016, the Plaintiff’s wife asserted that, around 2016, KRW 2.655,00 from the Defendant, the Plaintiff claimed that, from the loan amount of KRW 3 million, the Defendant deducted the Defendant’s advance interest of KRW 300,000 and KRW 50,000 from the Notarial Deed’s loan amount and remitted money.
Upon receiving the transfer of the bill to E’s account, ① the Defendant prepares the certificate of loan of 5 million won in the form of the principal to E by the joint and several sureties as the obligor, ② the due date for payment is made as the issuer of a promissory note with the maturity of 5 million won as of March 4, 2016, and the notary public prepares a notarial deed to the effect that there is no objection even if compulsory execution is conducted, if the payment of the bill is delayed, the bill of exchange No. 46 in the form of C Law Firm No. 2016.
B. The Defendant remitted KRW 500,000 to the above E’s account on February 12, 2016, and transferred KRW 500,000 to the Defendant on February 22, 2016.
In other words, the defendant remitted 1.4 million won to the above account on February 29, 2016, and from the above account, the amount of KRW 300,000 to the defendant on March 4, 2016 and KRW 700,000 was remitted to the defendant on March 25, 2016.
C. The Defendant, on April 5, 2016, remitted KRW 800,000 to E’s other accounts (G), and on April 22, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the amount was the amount that the Defendant deducteds KRW 40,000 from the borrowed amount of KRW 1 million and remitted to the Defendant.
this transfer was made. D.
D On April 22, 2016, the Plaintiff issued a certificate of personal seal impression and a certificate of personal seal impression to the Defendant. On behalf of the Plaintiff, the Defendant, on May 22, 2016, entered into a notarial deed on behalf of the Plaintiff, stating that the Plaintiff did not raise any objection even if compulsory execution was immediately conducted, if the Plaintiff did not perform the said monetary obligation on behalf of the Plaintiff, on May 22, 2016.
Since then, there was a transaction of money between the defendant and the above two accounts, but the deposit from the defendant was 350,000 won and the transfer to the defendant.