beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment, and all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.
Reasons
1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;
A. On April 6, 2017, the court of first instance rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim on April 6, 2017 after delivering a copy of the instant complaint to the Defendant and a notice of the date for pleading by public notice, and rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim. The original judgment also serves to the Defendant by public notice. The Defendant is issued a certified copy of the first instance judgment on May 22, 2017.
Therefore, the appeal of this case filed by the Defendant within two weeks from May 22, 2017, which became aware of the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was served by public notice was served by public notice, is lawful. 2. Judgment on the merits of this case
A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion 1) The plaintiffs, ① did not borrow money from the defendant, and prepared the notarial deed in this case by deceiving the defendant, ② did not have any debt on the notarial deed in this case (hereinafter "the loan in this case") since all of them were repaid as shown in attached Form 1, even if they were to borrow money from the defendant, the defendant, and the defendant lent money to the plaintiffs several times from November 21, 2008 to August 31, 2010, and the plaintiffs did not repay money within the agreed period, and therefore, they argued that the notarial deed in this case was prepared for the sum of KRW 82,182,000 after settling accounts on September 29, 2010.
Judgment
1) As seen in paragraph (2) below, the Defendant’s delivery of the instant loan to the Plaintiffs is acknowledged as follows: the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiffs had prepared the instant notarial deed because they belong to the Defendant; and there is no other evidence to support this, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit. 2) Whether the instant loan was fully repaid, 1 (No. 1197 of the No. 2010, A, and 7.