beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, No. 621, 2012, prepared by the Sejong General Law Firm on August 30, 2012.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 30, 2012, the Defendant and the Plaintiff lent KRW 120 million to the Plaintiff as a notary public-law 201,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff. On May 30, 2013, a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) was drawn up between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, which recognizes that there was no objection even if compulsory execution was conducted at the time of nonperformance.
B. The sales contract was prepared on November 1, 2012, with the content that the Defendant and the Plaintiff trade share of 443/3,000 of the purchase price of KRW 26 million, the down payment of KRW 10 million, and the remainder of KRW 16 million (on November 14, 2012, the payment date) with respect to the share of KRW 443/3,000,000,000, among the share of KRW 3356,000 square meters in Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “Before subdivision”).
C. On July 2, 2013, the land before subdivision was divided into E, a rice field of 2,913 square meters, and a rice field of 65 square meters, divided into E, and a rice field of 378 square meters. As to D paddy field of 378 square meters and F paddy field of 65 square meters, each registration for transfer of ownership was completed on July 11, 2013 on the ground of trade in C.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant land” referring to “D 378 square meters and F 65 square meters,” and hereinafter referred to as “instant land”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1, 3, and evidence 4-1 and 2
2. A party’s assertion as to the cause of claim;
A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) although the plaintiff tried to purchase the land owned by the defendant and construct the housing, he was able to know about the shortage of funds, such as purchase of land and construction. The plaintiff prepared the notarial deed of this case in order to secure the repayment of funds to be provided by the defendant by providing support to the purchase of land and construction cost of KRW 120 million.
(2) On November 1, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase the instant land at KRW 26 million in the Plaintiff’s name.
(3) The Plaintiff received some funds from the Defendant and completed the construction and repaid all of the borrowed money.