beta
Text
1. The defendant's notary public against C is a debt repayment contract No. 192, No. 2009, dated April 20, 2009.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 23, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a payment order against the Plaintiff, E, F, and C seeking payment of KRW 40,000,000 with the Daegu District Court Branch Branching 2008Da3465 on October 23, 2008 and interest thereon, and received a payment order in accordance with the purport of the application on October 27, 2008. The above payment order was finalized on November 13, 2008. 2) In addition, the Plaintiff filed a payment order against C as the same court Order No. 2009Da4203 on December 21, 2009, seeking payment of KRW 100,000,000 and interest thereon, and received the payment order in accordance with the purport of the application on December 23, 2009.
The above payment order was finalized on January 12, 2010.
3) The Defendant lent KRW 50,000,00 to C on January 22, 2008, but failed to receive it. On April 20, 2009, C and notary public agreed upon the debt amount of KRW 60,000,000 as the sum of the loan principal and interest thereon under the 192 deed 209, D Law Firm 2009, and the debt amount of KRW 10,000,000 to C by October 30, 209, the Defendant paid the debt amount of KRW 60,000,000 to C and the debt repayment contract notarial deed (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) stating that no objection is raised even if compulsory execution is carried out in the event of default.
4) On September 7, 2009, C made reimbursement of KRW 10,000 out of the above debt to the Defendant.
B. In relation to the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of demurrer against the Defendant, as to the distribution procedure for the money deposited by the Defendant C, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution under the court’s 2010Kadan943, arguing that the claim in the instant notarial deed was non-existent or forged by a false declaration of intent, or was fully repaid even if not, the Plaintiff’s claim was fully repaid.
However, on January 5, 2011, this Court rendered a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim in entirety.
The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
C. One of the Defendant’s fraudulent act revocation lawsuits is that C purchased and sold real estate to H, I, J, and K in excess of its obligation.