A promissory note No. 14, 2015, drawn up on June 26, 2015 by the Defendant’s law forum against the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

On June 26, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) borrowed money from the Defendant; (b) issued a promissory note No. 14 of the 2015 No. 2010, Jun. 26, 2015, with respect to promissory notes as of June 30, 2015, which were issued by the law firm square (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) to the issuer, the addressee, the Defendant, the face value of KRW 57,50,00; and (c) the due date.

On May 17, 2016, while being tried in Seoul Western District Court 2016Ma142, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 25,000,000 to the Defendant, and accordingly, the Defendant shall not file any civil or criminal claim in the future” (hereinafter “instant agreement”), and paid the above amount to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] According to the above facts of non-contentious facts, Gap 1, 3, and 4 evidence (including branch numbers), and the judgment of the court as to the ground for a claim as a whole of the pleadings, the obligations under the notarial deed of this case cannot be extinguished by the agreement of this case and its implementation, and there is a benefit to seek confirmation as long as the defendant contests this issue.

The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion also asserts that the plaintiff purchased and unpaid precious metals with the defendant's card, but even if so, it is difficult to regard such debt as a debt based on the notarial deed of this case. Thus, the above argument is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.