Cases in violation of public order and good morals or which may not be recognized as an unfair execution contract;

If the plaintiff and the non-party who jointly and severally assumed the debt are the representative of the plaintiff and prepared a notarial deed as to a monetary loan for consumption under his sole name and agreed that the compulsory execution may be effected against the plaintiff and the non-party's main items that were co-ownership of the plaintiff at the time of the completion of the notarial deed, then the plaintiff cannot raise an objection against the compulsory execution under this agreement even if the notarial deed is a title of debt for which the non-party is the debtor in the form of the notarial deed after the completion of the notarial

Article 103 of the Civil Act, Article 104 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na2877 delivered on August 24, 1967, Seoul High Court Decision 66Na2877 delivered on August 24, 1967

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The defendant's agent's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the judgment of the court below, as evidence, the court below held that the plaintiff, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 jointly and severally borrowed 600,000 won from the defendant, and the non-party 1 representing the above non-party 1 as the representative of the non-party 1 on February 4, 1966, a notarial deed as to a monetary loan for consumption made by the non-party 1 on the non-party 1, and that the above three parties agreed that the defendant would be able to enforce compulsory execution against the main items stated in the attached list, which were co-ownership by the plaintiff and the non-party 1 at the time of the above notarial deed, while recognizing that the above three parties agreed that the above notarial deed would not raise any objection, even if compulsory execution against each of the above items are enforced against the non-party 1, which is a debt title with the above notarial deed, it is an agreement in violation of the public interest law or lose fairness, or is extremely unfair in terms of a contract.

However, as the decision of the court below is confirmed, 60,00 won is jointly and severally borrowed by the plaintiff, the non-party 1, and the non-party 2, and if the loan is unable to be paid within the prescribed period, it is agreed that the compulsory execution against the above items is possible, and if the non-party 1 was in the form of the deed of No. 1, even if the non-party 1 is the debtor, the plaintiff cannot raise an objection against the compulsory execution under the above agreement, and the above agreement is in violation of the public interest law or the fairness is lost, and there is no legal reason to regard the above agreement as a contract in violation of the public interest law or is extremely unfair. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the judgment of the court below that the agreement between the original defendant and the non-party 1 and the non-performance of compulsory execution against the items of No. 1 by the No. 1.

Therefore, without any further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal, the appeal is to be justified. Therefore, according to Article 406 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu