beta
Text
1. Certificate drawn up on March 28, 2012 by a notary public of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is a C Law Firm, 2012.
Reasons
1. Determination on the main claim
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant lent KRW 100 million to Eul, who is the father of the plaintiff and the plaintiff, as the principal debtor. The plaintiff is a joint and several surety, D as the security for the above loan debt, and D, as the joint and several surety, was a notary public, on March 28, 2012, pursuant to C law firm No. 212, "the defendant shall pay 100 million won to the plaintiff on March 28, 2012 (50 million won out of the due date) and October 31, 2013 (50 million won out of the 100,000 won), and as a joint and several surety of the plaintiff and D, the defendant prepared a notarial deed to the effect that he did not lend 100,000 won to the plaintiff as the notarial deed, even if the plaintiff and D did not perform the above monetary obligation, and that the notarial deed was not a notarial deed (hereinafter referred to as "the notarial deed").
According to this, since the Defendant did not lend KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff, unlike the entries in the notarial deed of this case, the notarial deed of this case is eventually null and void without any cause debt, and there is no debt of KRW 100,000,000 against the Defendant based on the notarial deed of this case.
I would like to say.
B. As to this, it is true that the Defendant’s business related to the Kim Crops after preparing the notarial deed in this case.
However, the Plaintiff did not invalidate the notarial deed of this case and requested the Plaintiff to lend money to the bond business with the notarial deed of this case as collateral. Accordingly, from April 7, 2013 to April 29, 2015, the Defendant lent money necessary for the bond business to the Plaintiff from April 7, 2013 to April 29, 2015. Of them, the Plaintiff was not paid KRW 62,151,000.
Therefore, the plaintiff's objection against the defendant.