beta
Text
1. Revocation of the judgment of the first instance court, and the Defendant’s loan case No. 2017 tea3203 against the Plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The deceased D (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on November 14, 2017. The Plaintiff B is the wife of the deceased, the Plaintiff A’s children, and the Defendant is the husband of E, who is his/her father.
B. On May 9, 2007, the Deceased and the Defendant prepared a loan certificate stating that “the KRW 100 million is determined as the first patrol officer and the interest rate of 8% per annum on May 2012, 2012” (No. 3; hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).
C. On November 1, 2017, the Defendant filed an application with the Jeonju District Court for a payment order claiming payment of KRW 80 million out of the amount stated in the loan certificate of this case with the Jeonju District Court Decision 2017 tea3203, and on November 6, 2017, the above payment order was finalized on November 23, 2017, upon receiving from the above court the payment order stating that “the net shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 80 million and the amount of KRW 80 million from June 1, 2007 to the delivery date of the authentic copy of the payment order, 8% per annum, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”
hereinafter referred to as "the payment order of this case"
(ii) [Ground of recognition] unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 10, and Eul evidence 3 (if any, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply);
each entry, the purport of the whole pleading
2. The parties' assertion
A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion was to prepare for a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act as to the deceased's avoidance of gift tax or disposal of the above real estate while planning to donate real estate to E. In fact, the borrowed amount based on the loan certificate of this case was in full KRW 20 million borrowed from E on May 15, 2007 by the deceased, and the above KRW 20 million was fully repaid.
Since the Defendant did not actually lend KRW 80 million to the Deceased, there is no claim for the Defendant’s above loan against the Deceased, the Defendant’s compulsory execution based on the instant payment order against the Plaintiffs should be rejected.
B. The defendant's summary of the defendant's assertion is requested by the deceased.