1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except where the defendant added the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the trial of the court of first instance, and thus, it refers to the reasoning for the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant filed a complaint with C as a fraud in order to receive a return of money borrowed by the Defendant to C, and then withdrawn the above complaint from C on June 30, 2012, and thereafter, the Plaintiff, who conducts a business with C, committed a joint preparation of the instant notarial deed and had the due date postponed by July 30, 2012, by believing the Plaintiff’s re-determination at the time of the completion of the notarial deed, and later, the date for payment was extended by July 30, 2012. The Defendant asserted that it is unjust to determine that the notarial deed of this case is invalid only on the ground of the confirmation document issued on August 31, 2012, under the belief of C, of the end of the instant notarial deed, stating that “If enforcement on the Plaintiff’s real estate is carried out by compulsory execution, it would interfere with the business jointly carried out by the Plaintiff and C, and it is merely a preparation of a formal document to know the Plaintiff’s knowledge.”

On August 31, 2012, the written evidence No. 20 alone was written against the defendant's will.

It is insufficient to recognize the fact that the real estate was prepared formally on the condition of repayment of the Plaintiff’s obligation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Furthermore, even according to the Defendant’s assertion above, the Defendant expressed to the Plaintiff the intent not to enforce compulsory execution on the Plaintiff’s real estate by preparing and granting the above written confirmation. Thus, as long as the Defendant received dividends of KRW 43,149,49 upon filing an application for compulsory auction on the Plaintiff’s real estate against the above written confirmation, the Plaintiff may seek the return of the amount equivalent to the above dividends to the Defendant.