beta
Text
1. A deed drawn up by the Defendant and a notary public against Plaintiff A on November 20, 2009 by the law firm representative, No. 858.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Around May 12, 1999, Plaintiff A borrowed money from the Defendant for the first time and subsequently traded money with the Defendant several times.
B. On September 30, 2009, Plaintiff A borrowed KRW 4,000,000 from the Defendant, and the notary public and the Defendant drafted a deed of promissory notes No. 763 (Evidence No. 763) signed by the law firm on September 30, 2009 between the Defendant and the notary public.
After November 16, 2009, Plaintiff A repaid all of the above obligations.
C. The plaintiff A borrowed KRW 8,00,000 from the defendant on November 20, 2009 and borrowed KRW 8,000,000 between the defendant and the notary public on November 20, 209, No. 1 of the No. 858 of the Promissory Notes No. 858 prepared by the law firm on November 20, 209
1. hereinafter referred to as “instant No. 1 notarial deed”
d. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 25,00,000 from the Defendant on December 2, 2009 and borrowed KRW 25,000,000 between the Defendant and the Defendant, a notary public signed by the Defendant on December 2, 2009 under the Monetary Loan Agreement (No. 889) by a notary public on December 2, 2009.
2. hereinafter referred to as “instant No. 2 No. 3”
The Plaintiff’s spouse, the Plaintiff, was paid KRW 18,350,000 for the remainder after deducting advance interest, etc. from the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s joint and several surety for the Plaintiff’s above loan obligation, and the Plaintiff’s spouse, as a joint and several surety, prepared the 2-notarial deed of this case as a joint and several surety. D around December 19, 209, upon the Defendant’s introduction, lent KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant subrogated to D on February 10, 2010 for the above loan amount of KRW 30,000,000,000. Meanwhile, the date of preparation for the loan amount of KRW 30,00,000 from D, the Plaintiff prepared a loan certificate (Evidence No. 1) stated as a joint and several surety, but the Defendant asserted that the above loan amount as a joint and several surety was not the Plaintiff.