beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
A notary public against the plaintiff is a law firm.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is that ① the Defendant’s “in accordance with C’s request” in the third sentence of paragraph (a) of the first instance judgment is added, ② the Defendant’s “in order to secure the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement for joint and several liability” in the first sentence of paragraph (b) is as indicated in the corresponding part of the first instance judgment, except that the Defendant’s “in order to secure the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement for the joint and several liability” in the first sentence of paragraph (1) is deemed as “the Plaintiff’s ownership”, and thus, this part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of the Promissory Notes was issued in order to secure the claim for reimbursement against C arising from the Defendant’s repayment of the debt to D on behalf of C, and KRW 25,308,384, which the Defendant repaid to D after the judgment of the first instance, is expected to repay to C as soon as possible. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Promissory Notes No. 308,384 should not be allowed.
B. The notarial deed of the Promissory Notes of the Defendant’s assertion is prepared and delivered within the limit of KRW 60,00,000 for securing the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement against all obligations, such as C’s loan and collection obligation, and it does not guarantee C’s claim for reimbursement related to C’s loan.
The Defendant, as a trustee, may exercise a prior right to indemnity under Article 442 of the Civil Act. Since the amount of recovery obligation to F branch offices of C, the due date for which the compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case became due, and the amount of loan obligation to D exceeds KRW 60,000,000, the Defendant held a prior right to indemnity of at least 60,000 won against C, as well as the Defendant acquired a right to indemnity of at least 25,308,384 won on December 5, 2016, which is after the judgment of the first instance.
Therefore, the validity of the instant promissory note is based on the Notarial Deed.