청구이의
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows: (a) adding the judgment as described in paragraph (2) below to the argument that the defendant made in the trial of the court of first instance; (b) adding the “B” in the 7th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance to D; and (c) adding the “B” in the 7th sentence to “D”, and (d) excluding the fourth sentence to “B” in the 7th sentence, thereby citing it as is in accordance with the main sentence of
2. Additional determination
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s conjunctive assertion 1) even if the Defendants and B had a loan claim of KRW 650 million against the Plaintiff on the Notarial Deed, the Defendants and B filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order in a rupture that received a promissory note separate from the instant Notarial Deed on April 2013, and collected KRW 35,90,046, total amount of KRW 35,990,046 on July 9, 2013. Accordingly, since a loan claim of this case on the Notarial Deed has expired in KRW 35,90,046 on the instant Notarial Deed, compulsory execution based on the said Notarial Deed against the Defendants should be denied as to KRW 35,90,046 on June 13, 2013.
Therefore, since the loan claim of this case on the notarial deed of this case was entirely extinguished, compulsory execution by the above notarial deed against the plaintiff by the defendants should be rejected in its entirety.
B. The gist of the Defendants’ assertion is that loans under the instant notarial deed are divided claims of the Defendants and B. Therefore, the part of the collection amount of KRW 35,990,046, out of the claims held by B against the Plaintiff, is extinguished. Since the claims held by the Defendants against the Plaintiff are not extinguished, compulsory execution based on the said notarial deed against the Plaintiff by the Defendants should be permitted.
C. According to the above facts of the judgment 1, the plaintiff is 25.5 billion won against the defendant C.