beta
Text
1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is the law firm, No. 404, 2009, 2009, 2009.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 7, 2009, Seoul Special Date: (a) On October 7, 2009, a notary public lent KRW 50 million to the debtor (referring to the defendant; hereinafter the same shall apply) and borrowed it from the debtor. The debtor shall repay it by October 7, 2010. The joint guarantor (referring to the plaintiff; hereinafter the same shall apply) guaranteed the debtor's obligation under this contract and agreed to jointly and severally with the debtor to jointly perform the obligation. (a) If the debtor and the joint guarantor fail to perform the monetary obligation under this contract, a notary public prepared a notarial deed as stated in paragraph (1) of the same Article (hereinafter referred to as "notarial deed of this case") stating that "if he/she fails to perform the monetary obligation under this contract, he/she is aware that he/she has no objection, even if he/she is subject to compulsory execution."
B. On March 19, 2010, the Defendant prepared a written confirmation that “the Plaintiff is excluded from the joint and several liability obligation on the instant notarial deed, and confirms that there is no liability and obligation for repayment with respect to the repayment of the obligation on the instant notarial deed after this time,” and then the notary public entrusted the preparation of the said written confirmation with No. 340 on Seoul 2010, Seoul 201, and the Plaintiff received the said written confirmation through C.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the result of fact inquiry by the notary public of this court on Seoul Legal Firm, the purport of the entire pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant exempted the plaintiff's joint and several liability based on the notarial deed of this case on March 19, 2010. Thus, the defendant's compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case against the plaintiff should be dismissed.
In this regard, the defendant prepared a false confirmation document on March 19, 2010 on the ground that the plaintiff was aware of the plaintiff's parent's joint and several surety with the thickness, and the defendant merely prepared a false confirmation document on March 19, 2010.