1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, No. 1141, July 15, 2015, drafted by Cjoint Law Office, No. 1141.

In the event that an executive title is a notarial deed, an objection against a claim may be raised even on the grounds arising prior to the formation of the deed (Articles 59(3) and 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act). Thus, an objection may be raised in a lawsuit of demurrer against a claim for the failure, invalidation, etc. of a claim as stated in

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff and the defendant, a notary public of July 15, 2015, as the plaintiff and the defendant, shall be the creditor of the joint law office, and the creditor of the defendant shall lend the plaintiff to the debtor, and the debtor borrowed the money from the debtor on June 30, 2015 (600,000). If the debtor and the joint guarantor fail to perform a monetary obligation under this contract, the creditor shall immediately be subject to compulsory execution, and if the debtor and the joint guarantor fail to perform a monetary obligation under this contract, the notary public shall be deemed to have raised no objection even if they are subject to compulsory execution, and the same content shall be deemed to have been prepared by the notarial deed No. 1141 of the Cjoint law office No. 2015 (hereinafter "notarial deed of this case"). However, as stated in the notarial deed of this case, the defendant shall not have any dispute between the parties and thus, the plaintiff shall not be granted a compulsory execution based on the above loan amount of KRW 600 million.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the provisional disposition ex officio pursuant to Articles 47 (1) and 26 (2) of the Civil Execution Act.