beta
Text
1. The defendant's notary public C belonging to the Ulsan District Prosecutors' Office against the plaintiff was No. 76 of 2009, prepared on February 4, 2009.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 4, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entrusted C public prosecutors belonging to the Ulsan District Public Prosecutor's Office with the execution of notarial deeds No. 76 of 2009, which contain the following contents (hereinafter "notarial deeds of this case").
“The Plaintiff shall approve that the Defendant has a debt of KRW 23,808,000,00,000 for the agreed loan amount of KRW 18.6 million from October 6, 2008 to February 3, 2009. The Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the above amount of KRW 1,984,00 on 15th day of each month from February 15, 2009 to January 15, 2010. If the Plaintiff fails to perform the above monetary obligation, it shall be recognized that there is no objection immediately to compulsory execution.”
B. On May 2, 2014, the Defendant applied to the Ulsan District Court for the attachment and assignment of the claim against “the Plaintiff’s claim for expropriation compensation to Ulsan Metropolitan City Urban Corporation” with the title of execution of the instant notarial deed as the title, and on May 12, 2014, the said court issued the attachment and assignment order upon receiving the Defendant’s application.
(The assignment order, etc. of this case in the above court). [The ground for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The parties' major arguments and judgments
A. (1) With respect to the Plaintiff’s major assertion that the Plaintiff’s major assertion is (a) Nonparty D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) who held office as representative director at the end of 2008 sold to the Defendant at a discount of the number of shares per issuance of the Nonparty Company, the said number of shares was in default.
Since the notarial deed of this case was made in relation to the check money as above, the debtor on the notarial deed of this case is not the plaintiff but the non-party company.
(B) In addition, the Plaintiff did not borrow money from the Defendant on the instant notarial deed, and thus, the said notarial deed is null and void as it does not have any cause.