beta
Text
1. Promissory notes No. 10035, which are issued by the Defendant’s executory notary public against the Plaintiff as one of the law firms.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff issued one promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) to the Defendant in blank with the remainder other than the signature and seal affixed by the issuer’s column. The Defendant, based on the said promissory note and the Plaintiff’s power of attorney, supplemented the issue date of the said promissory note in blank to KRW 20,00,000 on September 11, 2012, and supplemented the face value amount to KRW 20,000,00, based on the Plaintiff’s power of attorney, on December 10, 2012, a notary public drafted a authentic deed of a promissory note No. 10035 as one of the Plaintiff’s certificates as a law firm on December 10, 2012. The key content is to recognize that there is no objection even if the Plaintiff is subject to compulsory execution if the Plaintiff
(hereinafter referred to as “instant notarial deed”). (b)
On the other hand, on October 29, 2013, the Defendant drafted a written agreement with the Plaintiff that “The Plaintiff would not raise any civil or criminal objection to the Defendant, as the Plaintiff fully stated the amount of the notarial deed and the amount of benefits seized.” (hereinafter “each of the instant documents”).
C. As of the date of closing argument of the instant case, the original promissory note of this case is owned by the Defendant.
【Unfounded facts, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings】
2. The parties' assertion
A. On August 27, 2012, the Plaintiff issued the Promissory Notes with a loan of KRW 3,000,000 from the Defendant, and the same year.
9. On November 2, 11, 200, KRW 1,000,00 on November 1, 201 of the same year, and KRW 9,850,00 on four occasions, including KRW 3,250,00 on October 29, 2013, and KRW 20,000 on the above borrowed amount, and repaid KRW 26,00,000 on the aggregate from October 26, 2012 to June 16, 2014. Since the face value of the Promissory Notes in this case was unfairly abused the Defendant’s right to fill in blank, enforcement based on the Promissory Notes in this case and the Notarial Deed cannot be permitted.
B. The defendant's assertion.