청구이의
1. On October 12, 2012, the Defendant’s notarial deeds against the Plaintiff on the debt repayment contract (No. 1338) No. 1338, 2012.
1. On October 12, 2012, the Plaintiff approved that the Defendant was 3.85 billion won as a result of the Plaintiff’s factory construction work located in Do Man-ri, Do Man-do, Do Man-do, Do Man-do, Do Man-do, 5,00 million won. The Plaintiff’s basic fact is either 1.2 billion won until November 13, 2012, 390 million won by the end of July 2013, 2013, and 390 million won by the end of February 2014, 390 million won by the end of February 39, 2014, and 39 billion won by the end of May 2014, and 390 million won by the end of August 19, 2014, and 1.5 billion won by the end of each of the instant notarial deeds as to the repayment agreement as a whole, or 3.4 billion won by the end of August 2013 billion.
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) around February 1, 2013, the Defendant paid KRW 500 million in cash to the Defendant; and (b) the Plaintiff agreed to transfer the Plaintiff’s national tax refund claim to the Republic of Korea KRW 265 million to the Defendant to extinguish all the obligation for construction payment based on the instant notarial deed; (c) thus, compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed should not be allowed
B. Determination: (a) around February 1, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 500 million to the Defendant; and (b) transferred to the Defendant the obligation to refund the national tax of KRW 265 million to the Republic of Korea to the Defendant; and (c) around February 1, 2013, the Defendant submitted to the said agricultural cooperative the said agricultural cooperative at the time when the Plaintiff was granted a loan from the Changwonwon Agricultural Cooperative, as the Plaintiff received the full amount of the construction of the Plaintiff’s factory and the additional construction, giving up any exercise of the right of retention arising in relation to the said construction, and does not exercise any real rights and contractual rights that are contrary thereto, and does not exercise any objection, and the fact that the Plaintiff submitted the waiver of the right of retention and the statement of field inspection that “I confirm that I will explain the site without any objection.”