beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, No. 239 of the 2011 No. 2010, No. 2010.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A. Around September 2010, the Defendant agreed to make an investment in operating funds, etc. with the Plaintiff Company in a human resources supplier company operated by the Plaintiff Company. A total of KRW 130 million with the Plaintiff Company, the Defendant invested KRW 20 million with the Plaintiff Company in the name of the acquisition of shares in B ( human resources company) in the name of the acquisition of shares, and the remainder KRW 110 million with the operating expenses.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant investment agreement”). B.
At the time, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to issue a promissory note with the face value of KRW 130 million to the Plaintiff Company as a collateral for payment of the instant investment amount ( KRW 130 million). However, “it is defective with the funds acquired by the Defendant to be extinguished by the Defendant” was accepted in the proposal of the Plaintiff Company, and received from the Plaintiff Company a copy of a promissory note with the face value of KRW 110 million on September 27, 2010, as stated on September 26, 2012.
(hereinafter referred to as "the Promissory Notes". C.
Plaintiff
In accordance with the instant investment agreement, the company would pay an average of KRW 2 million to the Defendant, while running a human resources supply business together with the instant investment agreement, and would cause a bidding with the Defendant as to the method of operating the business. On July 2, 2011, upon the Defendant’s request, the company returned KRW 10 million out of the share acquisition amount (20 million) to the Defendant on July 2, 201, and on October 20, 201, a promissory deed with the content that “it is recognizable that the instant promissory note will be immediately subject to compulsory execution.”
Plaintiff
The Company, from October 31, 201 to August 7, 2013, remitted total of KRW 116,659,000 to the Defendant in the same manner as the attached list, among the period from October 31, 2011 to August 7, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff Company 1 terminated the instant investment agreement on October 20, 201, and the Defendant on the day of this case.