beta
Text
1. Compulsory execution against the Defendant’s Plaintiff based on the payment order in the loan case.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff, a company established for the purpose of the business of building reinforced concrete, etc., was awarded a contract for the new construction of three rental apartments with 297 m2,00 m2, Nam-gun, Jeonnam-gun, and two parcels of land (hereinafter “instant apartment”). During the said construction, the Plaintiff had undergone multiple legal disputes inside and outside of the Republic of Korea, and the said construction was suspended.
B. The Defendant received a subcontract from the Plaintiff for a mold construction among the new apartment construction works in the instant apartment, and performed the said construction works for about four months from October 2002, and accordingly, acquired the Plaintiff’s claim for construction price (hereinafter “instant claim for construction price”).
C. On May 26, 2005, the Defendant drafted a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) between the Plaintiff and a notary public as No. 2685, No. 2685, a document number 2005, with a loan claim amounting to KRW 217 million.
On March 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to transfer the Plaintiff’s shares of 18,000 shares to the Defendant for the repayment of the instant construction cost claim, and the transfer of ownership was made in the future for the Defendant around March 31, 2006.
E. D was appointed as the Plaintiff’s director on December 16, 2002 and the Plaintiff’s representative director on May 6, 2003, but was dismissed from office on June 22, 2005. On June 12, 2011, D again assumed office as the Plaintiff’s director and the representative director, respectively. The Gwangju District Court Decision 2009Ga66223, supra.
The Plaintiff’s shares 18,00 of the Plaintiff’s 18,000 shares were owned by D in fact, and the transfer of ownership was made without D’s consent or consent, and the Defendant confirmed the shareholder, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff requesting the implementation of the transfer of ownership, and received a favorable judgment on July 27, 201 (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”), and the appeal and final appeal were dismissed, respectively, and the judgment above was dismissed.