청구이의
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
A notary public belonging to the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office against the plaintiff.
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the entry of "1. Basic Facts" among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The parties' assertion
A. In the Plaintiff’s assertion of the instant change agreement, if the Plaintiff did not enter into a share change agreement by December 17, 2015, the Plaintiff prepared the instant notarial deed in order to secure the Defendant’s duty to return KRW 679,096,937, which was already received, by stipulating that the Plaintiff shall return KRW 679,096,937, which was already received, to the Defendant. Since the Plaintiff entered into a share change agreement within the time limit, the Plaintiff
Furthermore, the transfer price of the remaining shares out of the above 679,096,937 won is 538,000,000 won as a final settlement amount, not an amount expected to be added or returned.
Therefore, since there is no claim against the defendant against the plaintiff, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case should be denied.
B. Of KRW 679,096,937 paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, KRW 538,00,000,000, out of the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant concluded the instant modification agreement as a provisional settlement upon succession to construction, and decided to make a final settlement by making a on-site inspection. The Defendant’s obligation to return to the Defendant as a result of the final settlement was also secured by the instant authentic deed.
However, there was no final settlement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and according to the result of the Defendant’s settlement, the Defendant would instead receive an amount exceeding the above KRW 679,096,937 from the Plaintiff. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the instant authentic deed is lawful.
3. Determination
A. Regarding the scope of the obligation to return the instant notarial deed, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1, 5-1, 5-2, 6-1, 2, 16-1 through 4, 24-4, and 24-4 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.