beta
Text
1. The defendant's notary public against B is a notarial deed with the executory power of No. 1205 of 2010, 2010.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 10, 1990, the Plaintiff reported a marriage with C on November 1, 2013, but reported a marriage with D on March 14, 2014, but the marriage was married on September 16, 2014. On February 1, 2016, the Plaintiff is a person who is living together with B at 101 Dong-dong 701 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
B. On April 9, 2010, the Defendant and F (the spouse B, the Plaintiff’s current spouse) borrowed KRW 30 million from the Defendant on the joint and several surety of the Defendant on March 4, 2010 by the notary public of April 2010, under the joint and several surety of the Defendant 2, G, and H, the amount of KRW 30 million from April 4, 2010, and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum (hereinafter “instant authentic deed”).
C. On May 3, 2016, on the basis of the instant notarial deed, the Defendant executed a seizure of corporeal movables on each of the items listed in the separate sheet in the instant real estate (hereinafter “each of the instant items”) by the Gwangju District Court 2016No. 1500.
(hereinafter “Compulsory Execution of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The notarial deed of this case, which cannot be an effective title, is prepared by B’s arbitrary use of B’s certificate of seal impression and seal imprint without notifying B of the preparation of the notarial deed to B at the time of preparation. Thus, the notarial deed of this case cannot be an effective title of compulsory execution of this case.
B. A compulsory execution against each of the instant items shall not be permitted, and since each of the instant items is items owned by the Plaintiff purchased at the Plaintiff’s expense in order to lead a new divorce and D prior to the Plaintiff around May 2014, the Defendant’s compulsory execution against each of the instant items shall be dismissed.
3. Determination
A. The notarial deed of this case is valid.