beta
Text
1. The request is dismissed.
2. The Mayang Branch of the District Court on July 30, 2013, 2013, Jinyang Branch of the District Court on July 30, 2013.
Reasons
1. On June 12, 2013, the fact that the Plaintiff: (a) transferred the shares of the Defendant and C (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”); (b) prepared a promissory note No. 189 (hereinafter “notarial deed”) by a notary public of KRW 100 million to the Defendant on June 12, 2013, in the course of re-acquisitioning the shares; (c) there is no dispute between the parties concerned.
2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the notarial deed of this case is based on a transfer contract with C to repay the obligation to pay the construction price to the Cheongdo General Construction Co., Ltd. of the non-party company, and that the notarial deed of this case is a juristic act which is null and void due to compulsory execution in violation of the principle of good faith, and it is sufficient to regard it as a deceptive act from the motive or cause of its preparation to be a fraudulent act, and it is sufficient to regard it as a compulsory execution in violation of the principle of good faith.
However, it is difficult to deem that the preparation or compulsory execution of the notarial deed of this case is null and void solely on the grounds asserted by the Plaintiff.
B. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant forced the preparation of the notarial deed of this case by taking advantage of his poor circumstances, and that it is an unfair practice in violation of Article 104 of the Civil Act.
However, it is difficult to view the preparation of the Notarial Deed as an unfair legal act solely on the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff.
C. (1) The Plaintiff is subject to a provisional disposition of prohibition of disposal by setting the right to claim the cancellation of ownership transfer registration on the ground of collusion, false representation or revocation of fraudulent act as the preserved right against the E-building No. 204 at the time of strike owned by the Plaintiff, which was filed by D against the non-party company, as Suwon District Court 2013Kadan1092, which was decided by the non-party company.