beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 2, 2013, the Plaintiff drafted a compulsory execution acceptance notarial deed (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) with the purport that “A notary public borrowed KRW 500 million from Defendant B at an annual interest rate of 30% on June 18, 2013,” which read that “the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 500 million from Defendant B at an annual interest rate of 30% on June 18, 2013.”
B. Around November 2014, Defendant B transferred the instant claim on the Notarial Deed (a loan amounting to KRW 500 million, interest thereon, and damages for delay) to Defendant A, and notified the Plaintiff on November 20, 2014.
C. On June 11, 2015, Defendant A, an executive title of the instant Notarial Deed, was issued with the Daegu District Court 2015TTTB8426 by Defendant A: The Plaintiff, the debtor, the third debtor: the Plaintiff, and the national bank in the Busan Agricultural Cooperative and the National Bank,” and collected KRW 398,684,943 from the national bank in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. on June 19, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's statements in Gap's evidence 1, 2, 6 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The gist of the cause of the claim is as follows, the Plaintiff sought each claim against the Defendants as stated in the purport of the claim.
(1) The notarial deed of this case is prepared to allow Defendant B to easily borrow money from Defendant A, and is null and void as it constitutes a false representation of agreement, and is null and void as to a claim for which there is no assignment or acquisition contract between Defendant B and Defendant A.
However, on May 20, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed with Defendant B to pay KRW 230 million to Defendant B as the return of the investment amount invested. This agreement is null and void, which is the agreement to convert the amount of KRW 230 million from among the notarial deeds of this case into validity, and the assignment and takeover contract between Defendant B and the Defendant is also effective only for the above KRW 230 million, and thus, it is converted to Defendant A’s Plaintiff.