1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The court of first instance accepted the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Lee 00, Kima, Kimbb, Song 00, 000 partnership 000000, 0000, 0000, b00, 000, b00, 000, 000, 00, 000, 00, 000, 00, 00, 00, 200, 200, and 300, 200, 300, 300, 1000, 200, 200, 200, 200, 300, 200, 200, 300, 200, 300, 300

2. cite the judgment of the first instance; and

The reasoning of the court concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

section 3.

3. Parts to be dried;

○ From 13 to 16 pages 17 to 10 of the first instance judgment

B. Determination on the validity of the notarial deed of this case

1) If the above Defendants’ assertion that the notarial deed of this case is null and void is accepted, the Plaintiff’s claim against the above Defendants premised on the validity of the said notarial deed is groundless without any need to examine other points, and thus, the validity of the notarial deed of this case is examined first.

2) In the case of a civil trial, the facts acknowledged in the judgment of other civil cases, etc., even though they are not bound by the facts established in the judgment of other civil cases, etc., shall not be rejected without reasonable grounds, unless there are special circumstances. In particular, the facts that the two previous and previous civil cases are identical to the parties and form the basis of the dispute are identical to those of the parties, but it is more so in the case where a new claim may be made as a result which does not conflict with the res judicata (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da92312, 92329, Sept. 24, 2009).

3) 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없거나, 이 법원에 현저한 사실 및 을나 제1, 6 호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정을 앞서 살펴 본 법리에 비추어 살펴보면, 이 사건 공정증서는 00 및 00물산의 경영을 둘러싸고 당시까지는 사실상 경제적 이해관계를 같이 하였던 ▲▲(00의 회장이자 00물산의 실질적 사주), 권00(00의 대표이사), 권aa(00물산의 대표)이 해외 투자유치를 위하여 00물산의 자산을 부풀리기 위한 목적으로 00과 00물산 사이에 아무런 채권채무관계가 없음에도 마치 00물산이 00에 대하여 대여금채권을 가지고 있는 것처럼 작성한 것으로서 통정허위표시에 해당하여 무효라고 봄이 타당하고, 갑 제13, 15, 31, 32, 34 호증의 각 기재는 위 인정에 방해가 되지 아니한다.

A) Progress of litigation for return of unjust enrichment

(1) Defendant 0000 filed a lawsuit against 00 water delivery seeking to return an amount equivalent to KRW 119,477,706, which was paid by the instant notarial deed based on the instant notarial deed, and received a favorable judgment on February 1, 2012 (hereinafter “related lawsuit for return of unjust enrichment”).

(2) Although there was an appeal against the above judgment of the court of first instance, the court of appeal appealed on February 28, 2013, and determined that the notarial deed of this case was null and void because the notarial deed of this case was made by a false agreement, and rendered a judgment citing part of the claim by the defendant 0000 (in the above lawsuit, 00 water acids are liable for damages to the plaintiff in the process of expanding the business to the United States, 00 U.S. dollars 3,300,000 U.S. dollars 3,000 U.S. dollars 3,0000 U.S. dollars 3,0000 U.S. dollars 3,000 U.S. dollars 3,0000 U.S. dollars 3,000 U.S. dollars c. with a view to facilitating enforcement in the Republic of Korea, and thus, the notarial deed of this case was prepared with a notarial deed of this case as follows on the substantive legal relationship.

① On January 19, 2010, at the time of the preparation of the instant notarial deed, the representative director of 00 on January 19, 2010, was 00, and the representative of 00 physical industry was aa, but two persons were her siblingss.

② Around September 2009, the right00 acquired 00 shares and management rights through a stock company 000, and worked as a management manager around that time, and was appointed as a representative director on November 12, 2009. At the time of acquisition of management rights, 00 shares and management rights were invested in the acquisition fund from 00 to 00 shares and management, which had been maintained as a son’s friendship by introduction around 1997 at the time of acquisition of management rights. 00 thereafter, 00 shares and management were involved in 00 shares and management.

③ 00 is a business entity that establishes and operates the Plaintiff and the 000 coplate, etc. in the United States. In order to operate the business in Korea, the Plaintiff established the 00 water occin on October 19, 2009 and entrusted the name of the shares to the 00 owner, and the 00 owner was a formal representative of the 00 water occin.

④ At around January 2010, 00, 00 U.S. dollars 40 million investment is to attract 00,000 U.S. dollars. However, it is necessary to increase the assets of 00 water delivery to meet the investment scale, and the 00 water delivery has been proposed as if the 00 water delivery has a claim against 00, and the 00 water delivery and the 00 water delivery, as representative of 00 and 00 water delivery, completed the notarial deed of this case as the 00 water delivery.

⑤ At around April 201, 00, 00 confirmed the above facts, prepared the Notarial Deed of this case 00, and published the fact that the act of occupational breach of trust was committed by falsely bearing the obligation of KRW 3.75 million to 00,000,000.

(6) On the other hand, around November 2009, the 00 water delivery acquired the shares and management rights of 000 stock companies, which are companies manufacturing and selling automobile parts with 00 funds, from February 2010 to February 1, 2010, there was a legal dispute over the actual subject of ownership of the shares and management rights, the settlement of investment accounts, and the ownership relationship of 000 shares and management rights. In addition, in addition, the civil and criminal disputes were more raised, such as 00 shares and management rights and 00 shares, and the embezzlement of the company's funds was revealed.

(3) Although the above appellate court's appeal was filed against the foregoing appellate court's judgment, the above appellate court's judgment became final and conclusive as the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on July 23, 2015.

B) Progress of litigation of demurrer against distribution

(1) Meanwhile, Defendant 000, among the distribution schedule prepared by the above court against Defendant 00 in the distribution procedure, deleted KRW 432,379,980, which was distributed on the basis of the Notarial Deed of this case against Defendant 00, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution claiming correction of the distribution to Defendant 0000 (hereinafter referred to as “related lawsuit of demurrer against distribution”), and the Plaintiff participated in the instant lawsuit as the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

(2) On May 27, 2014, the court of first instance rendered a judgment that the instant No. 3.75 billion won No. 3, a loan of KRW 3.75 billion as stated in the instant No. notarial deed was null and void, and rendered a judgment accepting Defendant 0000’s claim on the ground that there was no dispute between the parties, and that there was no obligation to compensate for the cause of the instant quasi-No. notarial deed which was alleged by the Plaintiff, who was the Intervenor to the instant lawsuit, to the Plaintiff during the process of expanding the business into the United States (the damages liability equivalent to the U.S. 3.3 million U.S. dollars (Korean Won KRW 3.755 million).

(3) Although the first instance court’s judgment on the lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution was appealed, the appellate court rendered a ruling dismissing the appeal on September 11, 2015, which rendered a ruling dismissing the appeal. Accordingly, the appellate court’s judgment became final and conclusive on October 15, 2015 on the ground that the 00 water delivery was appealed and withdrawn.

C) The aforementioned lawsuit for return of unjust enrichment, the pertinent lawsuit of demurrer against distribution and the instant lawsuit are identical to the Plaintiff, Defendant, 000,000,000, and the substance of the dispute is invalid, namely, whether the act of preparing the authentic deed of this case constitutes a false conspiracy, and whether the Plaintiff and the instant lawsuit constitutes a debt arising under the instant quasi-notarial loan contract asserted by the Plaintiff and the 00 marsan, and also the facts constituting the basis of the dispute. The same applies to the facts constituting the basis of the dispute. In the relevant lawsuit for return of unjust enrichment, a substantial examination was conducted through the first instance trial to the appellate court in the lawsuit for return of unjust enrichment, and all of the essential evidence submitted by the Plaintiff in the instant lawsuit are deemed to have been submitted in the relevant lawsuit.

4) As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that, in a lawsuit for return of unjust enrichment, it cannot be admitted as evidence in the judgment of the above lawsuit because it was erroneous for the Plaintiff to recognize the facts based on the perjury of 00 in dispute relations with the Plaintiff. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to reject the facts acknowledged in the judgment of the relevant lawsuit for return of unjust enrichment. Therefore,

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case shall be dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.