1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts without dispute;

(a) On April 23, 2019, a creditor who prepared a notarial deed (Defendant) shall grant a loan of KRW 40 million to an obligor (Plaintiff) on April 23, 2019, by determining that there is no interest and delay damages, respectively.

On April 23, 2019, the Plaintiff sought directly from the Defendant and a notary public to the Cjoint Law Office, and drafted a notarial deed written in the purport of the claim, and the main contents are as follows.

B. On June 27, 2019, the Defendant, based on the above authentic copy of the notarial deed, was subject to a decision of seizure and collection order of the deposit claims against the Defendant (third party obligor) with respect to the claim against the Defendant (third party obligor) as KRW 40,473,800 (the claim amounting to KRW 40 million on the notarial deed and the execution procedure expenses KRW 473,800) on the basis of the above authentic copy of the notarial deed (the judgment was finalized around that time).

2. The Plaintiff asserts that there was no entry of money transaction with the Defendant and thus, the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed by means of a false agreement with the Defendant, and thus, rejected compulsory execution as stated in the purport of the claim.

3. In the event that the Plaintiff asserts that a certain declaration of intention is invalid as a false declaration of agreement, there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion of false declaration of agreement, referring to the Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39617 Decided July 12, 2007, etc.

Rather, the court should recognize the existence and content of the expression of intent in accordance with the language and text, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof evidence that denies the contents of the statement in the case where the formation of a disposal document is deemed to be authentic. It is without dispute as to the facts such as Supreme Court Decision 2002Da23482 Decided June 28, 2002 and Supreme Court Decision 2004Da60065 Decided May 27, 2005, and evidence Nos. 2-7 (including serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) denies the authenticity of the Plaintiff’s signature as stated in the evidence No. 67, but the authenticity is recognized according to the result of the written appraisal commission to I.

The following circumstances are based on the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments: