beta
Text
1. A notary public D belonging to the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor's Office against the plaintiff of the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor's Office on July 9, 2015, No. 4068, which was 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. C Cooperatives (hereinafter “C”) operated F Council members in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, but G was detained on charges of fraud, violation of the Attorney-at-Law, etc. around March 18, 2015 by the president G who was its representative.
B. Thereafter, the Plaintiff agreed with C to pay KRW 55,00,000 to C, when the Plaintiff sold all of the hospital facilities, including the medical appliances of F, to the Plaintiff, but the dispute over the sale occurred between C and H. According to the above agreement, the Plaintiff agreed with C to pay KRW 55,00,000 to C on July 9, 2015, as the notary public D office of the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office No. 4068, which belongs to the Daejeon Public Prosecutor’s Office, approved that the Plaintiff’s debt owed to C was KRW 5,00,000,000 on July 8, 2015; and the said debt was 5,000,000,000,000 on July 15, 2015; and if the debt was repaid in installments, it should be paid by 20% per annum (hereinafter referred to as the “notarial deed”).
C. Around March 2, 2016, C prepared a claim transfer and takeover contract with the purport that C transfers its claim against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “claim in this case”) to the Defendant on the Notarial Deed, and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer of the claim in this case on March 3, 2016.
On March 10, 2016, the Defendant obtained the instant execution clause for succession to the notarial deed (hereinafter referred to as the “instant execution clause for succession”) from the notary office of notary public, and around June 14, 2016, the Defendant executed the attachment of medical devices, such as one straw flag located in Jwon located in Daejeon-gu I, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, and one strawbricated (Bluor).
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 4-1, 2, Gap evidence 2, 7 through 9, Eul evidence 5-1 and 5-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The defendant's judgment on this case's defense is based on the seizure and seizure of the claim of this case by H.