beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A. On September 21, 2004, between C and the Defendant, a notarial deed (No. 2153, No. 2004, No. 2153, No. 2004, No. 2004, No. 2153, No. 2004, No. 2004, No. 1) was prepared between C and the Defendant to pay KRW 20 million to the Defendant.
B. On April 8, 2011, C received a claim attachment and collection order (hereinafter “instant claim attachment and collection order”) from the Suwon District Court as the Defendant, the garnishee, the National Bank, the New Bank, the Bank of Korea, the Industrial Bank of Korea, and the claim amount of KRW 5,1250,178,000.
C. On May 10, 201, C transferred a claim of KRW 20 million based on the instant authentic deed to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of the said claim.
The bond transfer contract is accompanied by a certificate of personal seal impression directly issued by C.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the acquisition amount of KRW 20 million and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant's assertion 1 as to the non-existence of a loan claim based on the Notarial Deed of this case did not have borrowed KRW 20 million from C. The defendant merely issued a cash storage certificate to the effect that "if the developed software game is sold to another person upon request from C to return the above money, it would return it." Thus, since there is no loan claim based on the Notarial Deed of this case, the plaintiff's claim for the transfer of money constitutes an execution document of this case. 2) The plaintiff's claim for the transfer of money constitutes an execution document of this case, and the claim stated in the execution certificate of this case was not established or invalidated under the substantive law.