1. Compulsory execution based on the No. 358 No. 358, No. 2014 No. 358, against the defendant's defendant's office as a notary public C office against the plaintiff

Basic Facts

A. On August 8, 2014 between the Plaintiff and D, on March 7, 2013, a notary public’s office No. 358 of the No. 358 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) was written in writing, as to a loan agreement for consumption with the effect that D shall set KRW 66,00,000 on August 8, 2014 due date for payment, interest and delay damages as KRW 25% per annum, to the Plaintiff.

B. On April 11, 2017, D transferred the instant claim to the Defendant, and notified the Plaintiff of the assignment of claims on April 12, 2017, and the notification thereof reached the Plaintiff on April 13, 2017.

On April 21, 2017, the Defendant received an execution clause to succeed to the Notarial Deed of this case on the ground that the Defendant acquired the claim as above.

C. On May 25, 2017, the Defendant seized the instant corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff based on the instant notarial deed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, and 13 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), a summary of the plaintiff's assertion of the whole argument

A. D’s establishment of the notarial deed of this case, even though there was no obligation or obligation between the Plaintiff and D, constitutes a false declaration of intent in collusion, and thus becomes null and void as it constitutes a false declaration of intent in collusion with the Plaintiff.

The Defendant knowingly acquired the claim of this case in the Notarial Deed.

B. Since D transferred the claim of this case to the Defendant for the purpose of having the Defendant conduct a procedural act, such as filing an application for seizure of corporeal movables, the assignment of claim between D and the Defendant is null and void in accordance with Article 6 of the Trust Act by analogy.

C. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case must be rejected.

Judgment

With respect to the assertion that a false representation is invalid as a conspiracy, the plaintiff has not established the defendant's claim in the lawsuit of objection against the relevant law enforcement certificate.