beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. As to this part of the basic facts, this court’s explanation is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance court (as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, i.e., “Defendant C” (hereinafter the same shall also apply) except for the part cited in “Defendant C” as “Defendant T” (as well as the part cited in the same paragraph). As such, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The grounds for this court's explanation concerning this part are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (No. 6, No. 5, and No. 16). Thus, the defendant's notarial deed of this case is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2) The defendant's notarial deed of this case is invalid since it was made by a false competitive agreement as if M had a claim against I even though M does not have any obligation or obligation between I and M, and it is invalid. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion as the successor cannot seek confirmation
B. 1) Determination on the validity of the notarial deed of this case 1) In the event that the notarial deed of this case is null and void, the plaintiff's assertion premised on the validity of the notarial deed of this case is without merit, and the validity of the notarial deed of this case is examined first without merit. 2) In a civil trial, even though it is not bound by the facts recognized in the judgment of other civil cases, etc., the facts acknowledged in the notarial deed of this case shall be valuable evidence unless there are special circumstances, barring any special circumstance, it shall not be rejected without any reasonable reasoning. In particular, even if two civil lawsuits of this case are identical to the parties and form the basis of the dispute, it is more so more so if a new claim
(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da92312, 92329 Decided September 24, 2009). 3 Parties.