beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 22, 2012, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant: (a) borrowed KRW 15 million from the Defendant on July 23, 2011, as a notary public No. 385 of the Do Joint Law Office No. 2012; and (b) on April 30, 2012, the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. borrowed KRW 15 million from the Defendant on July 23, 2011; (c) the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. guaranteed the above loan obligation; (d) the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. guaranteed the said loan obligation; and (e) written a notarized deed to recognize the Defendant’s compulsory execution when the Plaintiffs fail to repay the said loan by the due date
B. On July 4, 2012, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant borrowed KRW 36 million from the Defendant as of July 23, 201 by a notary public, as of July 2012, 201, the Plaintiff Co., Ltd., as of July 23, 2011, with a set of time limit for repayment as of April 30, 201. Plaintiff B guaranteed the above loan obligation, and Plaintiff B signed a notarial deed to recognize the Defendant’s compulsory execution when the Plaintiffs failed to repay the above loan by the due date (hereinafter “notarial deed 2”).
[Reasons for Recognition - Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence A Nos. 1 and 2, Purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Determination
A. The plaintiffs asserted that each of the notarial deeds of this case was first prepared by the defendant that the plaintiff corporation would pay for each of the loans to Eul, the creditor of the plaintiff corporation A, or lend them to the plaintiff corporation by direct means. Since the defendant did not lend the above loans to the plaintiff corporation Eul, the defendant's compulsory execution based on each of the notarial deeds of this case should be denied.
B. As long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court must recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent as stated, unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that denies the content of the statement.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da67602, 67619, July 9, 2009). C.
However, the testimony of the witness F as shown in the plaintiffs' assertion is not trustable.