beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff was drafted on September 28, 2012 by the new era of law firm, No. 937.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant were married on December 25, 201, and married on January 13, 2012. (2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant reported the divorce to the Seoul Southern District Court on October 12, 2012, and finally settled around the end of June 2013.
B. On September 28, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted the No. 937 No. 937 of the New Law Firm No. 2012 No. 937, an authentic deed of the instant notarial deed (hereinafter “instant No. notarial deed”).
Article 1 (Purpose) The Defendant lent KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff on September 28, 2012, and the Plaintiff borrowed this.
Article 2 (Period and Method of Repayment) The repayment shall be made in equal installments on the 10th day of each month from October 2012 to September 2016.
Article 3 (Interest) Interest shall be 10% per annum, and shall be paid as principal on October 2012 to the 10th day of each month.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7 and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) As the debt of the card company was increased under the pretext of the purchase of mixed water and the cost of living in the original and the Defendant’s marital life, the instant notarial deed is merely prepared in falsity in the absence of a false fact that the Plaintiff actually borrowed money from the Defendant in order to conduct individual rehabilitation procedures after filing a divorce report. Since a monetary loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant based on the instant notarial deed is null and void as a false representation, compulsory execution based on the said notarial deed should be denied. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that most of the debt amounting to KRW 70 million that the Plaintiff was born before marriage was paid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff, and even during the marriage life, the Defendant repaid the Plaintiff’s credit card company’s debt, etc. on behalf of the Plaintiff.
The plaintiff and the defendant reported the divorce by the genuine intention of divorce, and around that time they set the amount of debt to the defendant as KRW 50 million.