청구이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On November 27, 2012, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C set KRW 50 million on August 5, 2012, the Defendant lent to C at an interest rate of 2% per month, and up to January 15, 2013. The Plaintiff joint and several guarantee of C’s above loan obligation within the limit of KRW 55 million, and if C and the Plaintiff fail to perform the above principal and interest payment obligation, a notarial deed of monetary loan contract (No. 1029, 2012, No. 1029, No. 2012, No. 1029, No. 2010, No. 2012, Nov. 27, 2012) was written to the effect that a notary public may immediately be subject to compulsory execution.
B. On October 15, 2015, the Defendant issued an order of seizure of shares under the Suwon District Court 2015TT19067, with the title of execution of the instant notarial deed as the title of execution, and enforced compulsory execution against the Plaintiff and C’s shares.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserts that as the cause of the instant claim is the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff did not actually borrow KRW 50 million from the Defendant at the time of preparing the instant Notarial Deed, but rather received KRW 50 million from the Defendant, and thus, the share sales contract was reversed, the Plaintiff shall return to the Defendant the amount of KRW 50 million, and for this purpose, the instant Notarial Deed is prepared, and therefore, compulsory execution based on the instant Notarial Deed should be denied.
Therefore, as long as the Plaintiff prepared and executed the notarial deed of this case to the Defendant, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff bears the joint and several liability for the payment of KRW C’s KRW 50 million based on the above notarial deed, unless there are special circumstances.
Even if the notarial deed of this case was prepared in order to return the purchase price of shares of KRW 50 million, not the actual loan debt, as alleged by the plaintiff, it is reasonable to view it as valid as a loan for consumption under an agreement to return the purchase price of shares of KRW 50 million or quasi-loan for consumption.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is any mother.