beta
Text
1. Compulsory execution based on the notarial deed No. 1619, No. 1619 against the defendant against the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Since 2012, the Plaintiff, who was an associated with D, participated with the Defendant.
The Plaintiff delivered KRW 10 million to the Defendant in 2012 and 2013, respectively, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on each land E, F, and G on August 1, 2013.
B. When the relationship between the Plaintiff and D still arises, on March 12, 2014, the Defendant entrusted C with a notary public belonging to the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office on the commission of C on March 12, 2014, and drafted a deed of contract for debt reimbursement (quasi-Loan for Consumption; hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).
On March 12, 2014, the debtor recognized that the obligation owed to the creditor as of March 12, 2014 is KRW 30 million, and made an offer to the creditor at the repayment key pursuant to the following provisions, and the creditor accepted it.
Article 2 (Period and Method of Performance) The repayment key is as follows:
On January 31, 2015, KRW 10 million, KRW 10 million on January 31, 2016, and KRW 10 million on January 31, 2016, and the remainder KRW 10 million on the following day that the creditor claims in writing to the debtor if the debtor has delivered D.
Article 9 (Recognition of Compulsory Execution) When an obligor has failed to perform a pecuniary obligation under this contract, the obligor recognized the absence of objection immediately even through compulsory execution.
Defendant Obligor Plaintiff
C. After November 5, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for H land owned by oneself in the Defendant’s future. As indicated in the instant authentic deed, the Plaintiff issued KRW 10 million to the Defendant in 2015 and 2016, respectively, and additionally remitted KRW 2 million for the treatment cost of the Henal around July 25, 2016.
Based on the original copy of the instant notarial deed, the Defendant seized as the court No. 2017No. 301 on July 26, 2017, one Tracter owned by the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-4 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the issue
A. The claim objection is raised in the lawsuit of objection to the relevant legal doctrine.