beta
Text
1. A notary public against the plaintiff of the defendant in 2014, drawn up on March 24, 2014 by the mission of the law firm, No. 557.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 3, 2013, the Plaintiff agreed to contract the construction work price of KRW 2,00,000,000, and the construction period of the construction of the instant construction work with respect to the construction of the instant construction work for the land-based childcare center (hereinafter “instant construction work”) on two parcels outside Asan City (hereinafter “C”) from September 3, 2013 to January 31, 2014 (hereinafter “instant contract”).
Upon entering into the instant contract, E, the representative director of C, and the Defendant, the director of C, was involved.
B. C performed the instant construction in accordance with the instant contract, but did not complete the instant construction by January 31, 2014, which was the date of completion of the instant construction.
C. On March 24, 2014, the Plaintiff prepared a “written confirmation on the balance of the construction price” with the content that the remainder of the construction work in this case is KRW 632,50,000,000 among the Defendant, and that the amount of KRW 200,000 among them is KRW 20,000 until April 15, 2014, and KRW 240,000 until May 30, 2014, and KRW 192,50,000 until July 30, 2014. A notarized by a notary public attached with the said written confirmation, a notarized deed (quasi-loan for Consumption) agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed”).
C A around April 2014, the instant construction was suspended without completion and the construction was discontinued at the construction site of this case. On July 25, 2014, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to rescind the instant contract to C, thereby reaching C on July 28, 2014.
E. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of the obligation against C, seeking confirmation that there is no obligation for the payment of construction price based on the instant contract, with the Daejeon District Court. On October 17, 2014, the said court rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff in entirety.
(C) The above judgment of the first instance court was appealed, and the present case is currently pending in the appellate court as the Daejeon High Court 2014Na14229). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, A’s first to 4, 26, and 26.