beta
Text
1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on July 1, 2016 by the above court with respect to the case of compulsory auction of real estate E by Seoul Eastern District Court.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s notary public against F was drafted on July 1, 2016, the distribution schedule as follows in the process of compulsory auction for real estate E by the Seoul East Eastern District Court, the Seoul Eastern District Court, the 502th five stories of the building G in Gangdong-gu, Seoul, which was conducted on July 1, 2016, with respect to the notarial deeds under the loan for consumption agreement (51,00,000 won leased principal, interest rate of KRW 6% per annum) No. 451, 2014.
The amount to be actually distributed to Defendant C 21,879,701 (the amount of claim is KRW 150,00,000) (the amount of claim) (the amount of claim is KRW 150,000) (the amount of claim is KRW 150,00,000) (the amount of claim is KRW 87,60,000), 21,224,477 (the amount of claim is KRW 145,50,000) (the amount of claim is KRW 150,00,000) (the amount of claim is KRW 60,000,000)) (4) the amount of claim is KRW 21,224,477 (the amount of claim is KRW 145,508,00).
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. According to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 8, and 4 through 4 (including each number), the fact that the No. 1 and the defendants made a No. 1 and a No. 1 and a Promissory Notes No. 4 are recognized.
However, in light of the fact that there is no financial data to support the actual existence of such financial transaction, the establishment of a right to collateral security, etc. at the time of preparation of the loan certificate, and the fact that H, the husband of F, was prepared on September 9, 2016 through the same notary public on behalf of the Defendants and F, etc., the Defendants appears to have prepared a false authentic deed as if they had a loan claim by collusion with F, even though they did not have any claim against F.
F The act of bearing an obligation to the Defendants by a notarial deed of promissory notes is null and void.
Rather, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim is false, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.
B. If so, 167,74,376 won (21,879,70 won) that the Defendants agreed to distribute to the Defendants is 145,50 won of the Plaintiff’s claim amounting to KRW 145,508,00,00 until it reaches KRW 124,283,523 won and KRW 145,508,500.