1. Certificates No. 161, 2014, drawn up by the Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, Law Firm C, November 12, 2014.

Basic Facts

A. On November 12, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) commissioned a notary public to a law firm C to commission the obligee “Defendant”; (b) the obligor “Plaintiff”; (c) the loan “100,000,000 won”; (d) November 12, 2014; (b) the maturity date; (c) the maturity date; (d) November 30, 2019; (d) the interest rate; (d) the Plaintiff delayed the payment of principal and interest at least once; and (d) the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his/her monetary obligation, the Plaintiff and the Defendant set out a notary public’s notarial deed to the effect that the Plaintiff did not raise any objection, which was immediately subject to compulsory execution, under Article 161 of the C Deed, as the law firm C.

(hereinafter referred to as the “notarial deed of this case”). B.

On December 14, 2015, the defendant transferred to D the claims indicated in the Notarial Deed (hereinafter referred to as "transfer of claims") to D, "the assignment of claims of this case" is "the assignment of claims of this case.

(C) On December 17, 2015, the Defendant: (a) filed an application with the Plaintiff for an extension of the property name against the Plaintiff with the Seoul Eastern District Court 2019Kao-Ma51211; and (b) filed the application on May 10, 2019; and (c) filed the application. [In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in subparagraphs A and 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not have received KRW 100 million from the Defendant, and D loaned KRW 100 million, and there was no fact that D lent KRW 100 million.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case should not be permitted.

B. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant lent KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff via D, and the Plaintiff prepared the instant notarial deed with the intent to pay KRW 100 million to the Defendant, and the interest on KRW 100 million was paid to the Defendant four times.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case should be permitted.

C. The burden of proof as to the grounds for the objection in a lawsuit of demurrer 1 is also in accordance with the principle of allocation of burden of proof in general civil procedure.