청구이의
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasons why the court has used for this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal of the corresponding parts as follows. As such, it refers to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The second written judgment of the first instance shall add the following details to the next 16th written judgment:
“C. The Defendant was indicted on November 30, 2015 on the charge (the purport that accepting the above order of seizure and collection based on the instant authentic deed constitutes fraud even though all of the underlying claims have been extinguished) as indicated in the separate sheet, and is now under trial (Seoul Central District Court 2015Da7373 case).”
(b)Evidence 1, 2, 13 of Category 17 of the Second Instance Decision of the Court of First Instance is the “Evidence 1, 2, and 13 of Category A”.
(c) Article 7 of the first instance court’s fifth and seventh Forms of “Bsory Notes” shall be deemed to read “Bsory Notes with respect to which C is the addressee,” and Article 8 and 9 shall read “the issuance or issuance of Promissory Notes to the Defendant other than C, or the issuance of Promissory Notes with respect to which the Defendant other than C is the addressee,” respectively.
The following shall be added to the 7th sentence of the first instance court:
Although the defendant asserts that "(the defendant has a claim for a loan of KRW 230 million against the plaintiff even if it reaches the trial, it cannot be accepted as seen earlier.
Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff repaid the loan amount of KRW 230 million to C, and the Defendant’s assertion to the effect that the loan amount of KRW 41,017,484 remains. However, as long as compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed should not be denied on the grounds as seen earlier, the issue of whether the Plaintiff fully repaid the loan amount of KRW 20 million is not determined.
【】
2. In conclusion, the decision of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.