1. Deed No. 417, 2009, drawn up by a notary public against the defendant's plaintiff, which was drawn up by a law firm of Jungdo in May 25, 2009.

Basic Facts

On May 25, 2009 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, a notary public notarial deed No. 417 of the Jung-do Law Firm Jung-do, No. 2009 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) was drawn up as follows.

(Purpose) Article 1 (Purpose) The Defendant lent KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff on May 25, 2009, and the Plaintiff borrowed this.

Article 2 (Period and Method of Payment) The payment shall be made by July 25, 2009.

Article 3 (Interest) The interest rate shall be 30% per annum.

(25th day of each month) Article 9 (Recognition of Compulsory Execution) When the plaintiff and the joint and several sureties fail to perform a monetary obligation under this contract, they recognize that they have no objection even if they are subject to compulsory execution.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, the parties’ assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff’s assertion of the parties to judgment, the defendant made an investment in the company run by C at the time, but requested the plaintiff to prepare the notarial deed of this case only for the purpose of showing the defendant to the investors in the above company, and the plaintiff prepared and executed the said notarial deed.

As such, the Defendant does not actually have a loan claim against the Plaintiff, so the instant notarial deed is null and void.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the defendant's authentication of this case should not be permitted.

From March 25, 2009 to June 26, 2009, the defendant alleged by the defendant lent money to the account in the name of the plaintiff or to the account in the name of C designated by the plaintiff's husband D, and as to the amount of KRW 50 million which is part of the above loan, the plaintiff's claim is unjust.

Judgment

In a lawsuit of demurrer against a notarial deed for which res judicata is not recognized, the failure of claim can also be a ground for objection, and the burden of proof as to the ground for objection in the lawsuit of objection is also in accordance with the principle of allocation of burden of proof in general civil procedure.