Attorney Kim Do-ll et al.

Attorney Lee Han-min, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be divided into five parts, and such two parts shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder by the defendant, respectively.

A. On September 15, 2006, while living together with Kim C1, the Plaintiff purchased one franchise vehicle from Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. with the Defendant’s joint and several surety (registration number XX) under the joint and several surety of Kim C1.

나. 원고는 2007. 2. 6.경 피고로부터 명의를 빌려 SM5 차량 1대(자동차등록번호 ×너 X호)를 ◈ 주식회사로부터 할부원금 20,900,000원, 연 5.5%의 약정금리로 36개월 할부로써 월 629,864원 불입조건으로 매수하였다.다. 원고는 2007. 8. 9. 위 그랜즈차량의 할부미납금과 SM5 차량의 할부미납금을 원고가 전부 변제하기로 하였으나, 피고는 원고가 위 각 차량할부금을 모두 변제하지 못

In preparation for the case, it was required to prepare a notarial deed.

D. Accordingly, on August 9, 2007, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) borrowed KRW 46,740,000 from the Defendant on August 9, 2007, as a law firm certificate 2007, from the Defendant on August 9, 2007; (b) collected KRW 1,270,000 on the 11st day of each month from August 11, 2007 to June 11, 201, and paid KRW 2,290,000 on a total of 35 occasions; and (c) written an executory money loan notarial deed (hereinafter referred to as “notarial deed of this case”) with the effect that the Plaintiff shall pay damages for delay at a rate of 24% per annum when the Plaintiff delayed payment.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 3, evidence No. 4-1, 2, witness Kim C1's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff paid 31,437,063 installments of the above franchise vehicle, which was the basis of the preparation of the notarial deed of this case, to the plaintiff, and to the above SM5 vehicle installments, it has already been transferred to another person's name.

As such, even if the Defendant’s mother and her mother are aware of the circumstances that could not transfer to the Plaintiff’s name, he/she prepared the instant notarial deed by force, such as finding the Plaintiff’s workplace and preventing the Plaintiff from doing his/her work, which is either null and void as a juristic act contrary to social order or an unfair juristic act, or ought to be revoked as an expression of intent by coercion. Accordingly, he/she asserts that compulsory execution based on the instant notarial

B. Determination

(1) 원고(원고의 부 석A)가 이 사건 공정증서 작성 후인 2007. 9. 11. 위 그랜즈차량 할부금을 전액 변제한 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없고, ◈ 주식회사에 대한 2010. 1. 28.자 사실조회결과에 의하면, 이 사건 공정증서 작성 당시인 2007. 8. 9. SM5 차량의 할부미납금이 18,198,000원인 사실이 인정된다.

(2) Meanwhile, as to whether the preparation of the above notarial deed is a juristic act contrary to social order or an expression of intent by an unfair juristic act or duress, the testimony by the Health Team, the witness Kim C1 alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and this part of the Plaintiff’s

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed against the Plaintiff shall be dismissed only for the portion exceeding KRW 18,198,00,00, which is the portion of the amount paid in the notarial deed of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.