청구이의
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
A notary public of the defendant against the plaintiff is a law firm C.
1. The court's explanation on this part of a notarial deed is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Grounds for the court’s explanation of this part of the grounds for appeal No. 2-B of the judgment of the first instance.
The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of Paragraph 2, except for adding the following contents at the end of the paragraph, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
"and 10,137,421 won in total of the Plaintiff's benefits collected by the Defendant seized and collected, and 175,98,373 won in the Plaintiff's deposit received by the Defendant reservation of an objection is merely appropriated for the principal of the Plaintiff's debt to the Defendant on the Notarial Deed of this case, and it cannot be said that the Plaintiff's debt was fully repaid."
3. The court's explanation on this part of the judgment is based on the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 3-B.
Except for the modification as follows, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of paragraph (3). Therefore, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
With respect to the portion repaid “B.”, ① the Defendant collected KRW 10,137,421 as the sum of the monthly salary paid to the Plaintiff’s school foundation D on June 7, 2017 after obtaining a claim attachment and collection order issued by the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2017TF District Court Decision 2017TB52, Jun. 7, 2017; ② the Plaintiff deposited KRW 175,988,373 with the Defendant as the principal deposit on July 28, 2017; the Defendant reserved an objection on August 8, 2017; or the Defendant paid the said deposit without dispute between the parties; and the Plaintiff’s debt owed to the Defendant on the instant notarial deed may be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the Plaintiff’s entries in the evidence No. 5 and the entire arguments, KRW 63,874,70,370,3781,700,7308,710 and 73705.