beta
Text
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
Basic Facts
On October 7, 2015, with respect to promissory notes amounting to KRW 65,00,000 for the issuer, payee, and face value of KRW 65,00,000, the case was prepared by the notarial deed No. 58 of 2015 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”). The fact that Nonparty C (hereinafter “foreign”) as the plaintiff’s agent at the time is present is no dispute between the parties.
Plaintiff’s assertion
The Plaintiff did not grant the right of representation to the Nonparty who attended as his agent at the time of the preparation of the notarial deed of this case, and thus, the notarial deed of this case
Judgment
According to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Act”), when there is no objection by any custodian, any rehabilitation creditor, any rehabilitation secured creditor, any shareholder, any equity right holder or any equity right holder on the date of inspection or special inspection, the contents of the reported rehabilitation claims and any rehabilitation security right or any rehabilitation security right, if there is no objection, and the amount of the voting right is determined (Article 166). When any confirmed rehabilitation claims and any rehabilitation security right are entered in the table submitted by the custodian in the table of rehabilitation creditors and any rehabilitation secured right, the entry of such confirmed rehabilitation claims and any rehabilitation security right has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment for all rehabilitation creditors, any rehabilitation secured creditor, any shareholder, any equity right holder (Article 168). The same applies to cases where the decision to discontinue the rehabilitation procedures has become final and conclusive before the rehabilitation plan is approved (Article 292(1))
(2) In the instant case, the Plaintiff received KRW 60,50,000 from the Defendant on October 7, 2015, which prepared the notarial deed of this case, according to the overall purport of the entries and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 5 (including a serial number). The Plaintiff received KRW 60,50,000 from the Defendant on October 7, 2015, and the Plaintiff was issued the notarial deed of this case on December 222, 2015.