청구이의
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. The allegations by the parties and the judgment thereof
A. The party’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s loan agreement for consumption on the Notarial Deed of this case (hereinafter “instant loan for consumption”).
(A) The instant notarial deed is not a monetary loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, but is merely a content of the investment money so that the Defendant can be settled in the future, as the Plaintiff paid KRW 426 million to the Defendant on July 4, 2012, even if the Defendant’s loan claim was established. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed should not be denied. (A) The instant notarial deed is not an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for a monetary loan, but is merely an arrangement of the details of the investment money to enable the Defendant to settle its investment money, etc. in the future.
The plaintiff did not borrow 460 million won from the defendant, and there is no possibility that the plaintiff entered into a quasi-loan agreement for consumption with respect to the defendant's investment amount.
B) According to the agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, D, and E, which are the investors of the Plaintiff, and C, the instant loan for consumption is null and void by a false declaration of intent, or must be revoked by mistake. (C) According to the agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, D, and E, the matters regarding C’s execution of funds and the company’s policy should be determined by a joint agreement of the said four persons. However, changing the Defendant’s investment funds to the loan to the Defendant C solely
2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff is the Defendant, the Defendant, the Defendant F, and the Defendant’s son G (hereinafter “Defendant”).
Among the money invested in this plaintiff and C, 469.6 billion won was used.
The defendant prepared the notarial deed of this case with the purport that the plaintiff borrowed the above money from the defendant by means of collecting useful money.