beta
Text
1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is each of the 2015 No. 857 and No. 858 of 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The non-party C is the husband of the representative director D of the Plaintiff Company and the actual operator of the Plaintiff Company. In the process of establishing the E Company (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”), he was aware of the Defendant with the introduction of Nonparty F by the auditor of the Plaintiff Company.
B. On June 15, 2015, C entered into an agreement between C and the Defendant and entered into an agreement to additionally pay KRW 300 million after receiving KRW 300 million from the Defendant and paying the capital of the non-party company, and returning KRW 300 million (hereinafter “instant agreement”).
In addition, on June 15, 2015, C and F issued two promissory notes with the date of payment fixed as the Plaintiff, F, par value KRW 300 million, and the due date as of August 12, 2015, and December 20 of the same year as of December 12, 2015 in order to secure the instant agreement. On the same day, a notary public prepared each promissory notes No. 857 and 858 of the 2015 No. 857 and delivered to the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness F's witness F's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the nature of the instant agreement
A. As to the instant agreement, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 300 million from the Defendant, and on the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution by the instant promissory note No. 300 million won should be denied, on the other hand, since the Plaintiff had already repaid the loan amount of KRW 300 million and the interest thereon, and the compulsory execution by the instant promissory note No. 300 million should be denied. However, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was paid KRW 300 million to the Plaintiff and the principal amount of KRW 300 million, and that the Plaintiff did not extinguish the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the investment amount.
B. Relevant legal principles are monetary loans for consumption.