beta
Text
1. The Defendant and D shall revoke the monetary loan agreement concluded by Law Firm E on September 13, 2016 as No. 439.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a creditor of the acquisition amount against D.
(B) The judgment in favor of the District Court 2015da70456 rendered a favorable judgment ordering “3,659,821 won and damages for delay thereof” is final and conclusive.
On September 7, 2016, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order as the Busan District Court 2016TTT17974 on September 7, 2016 with respect to the deposit claims of D based on the above judgment, and served the same collection order to F, Inc., Ltd., the garnishee (hereinafter “F”), the said collection order on September 12, 2016.
C. On September 13, 2016, the Defendant, as D and his wife, who was in excess of the obligation, is the “notarial deed of this case” in the “No. 439, 2016 No. 2016, hereinafter the “No. 439, 2016,” to the effect that D borrowed 35 million won from the Defendant, and that it consented to the Defendant’s compulsory execution.
The Defendant prepared the instant notarial deed. On September 23, 2016, the Defendant received the execution clause using the instant notarial deed, and received a seizure and collection order as to D’s deposit claims against D’s Busan District Court 2016TTT No. 19207. D. The F deposited KRW 3,404,847 of D’s deposit claims as Busan District Court 2016No9337. The Plaintiff and the Defendant received dividends in proportion to the same priority as the collection right holder in the instant H distribution procedure. In other words, the Plaintiff was distributed KRW 487,756, and the Defendant was paid KRW 2902,536. However, the Defendant and D did not lend KRW 35 million to D. The Defendant and D prepared the said false monetary loan contract and notarial deed with the intent to escape the Plaintiff’s compulsory execution against D, based on which the Defendant participated in the distribution procedure (the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant was found guilty as the Defendant’s compulsory execution and the Defendant participated in the distribution procedure.
2. The determination of the cause of the claim is already missing in excess of the obligation.