청구이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On January 9, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Defendant and the notary public made a notarial deed in the name of the Plaintiff and prepared the notarial deed in the debt repayment contract (hereinafter “notarial deed in this case”); (b) the Defendant and the notary public bear the debt of KRW 20 million against the Defendant in the form of No. 2014, Feb. 10, 2014; and (c) KRW 150,000 per month from February 10, 2014 to February 10, 2015 (the first payment date appears to be March 10, 2014); and (d) on March 10, 2015, the Plaintiff prepared the notarial deed in the name of the Plaintiff and used the notarial deed in the actual amount; and even if the Plaintiff are deemed the debtor, even if the Plaintiff is deemed the debtor, the compulsory execution based on the notarial deed should be denied.
2. Determination
A. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 8 through 11 as to the assertion that D is the debtor, the plaintiff transferred a restaurant with the trade name of "E" operated by D, and reported its business registration and operation under the plaintiff's name. During that process, the plaintiff received alcoholic beverage loans under the plaintiff's name from D and consented to it. The plaintiff prepared the notarial deed of this case in accompanying D and transferred 20 million won from the defendant to D immediately upon receiving the plaintiff's account on January 10, 2014, but it is recognized that it is difficult to view the debtor of the borrowed money stated in the notarial deed of this case as D, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.
Rather, comprehensively taking account of the statement No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of the witness D, the Defendant transferred KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff’s account as requested by the Plaintiff immediately after the preparation of the notarial deed, and the Defendant appears to have first seen D at the time of the preparation of the notarial deed and was unaware of the internal circumstances of the Plaintiff and D.
Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
B. According to the evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6 as to the assertion of repayment, DD on February 28, 2014 to F.