Background
Yielding to the other party's threats, our client signed a notarial deed recording a "loan obligation" of KRW 100 million that had in fact never been borrowed. The other party then moved to enforce, attaching our client's business revenues and lease deposit — their means of livelihood — on the strength of that deed. Changchun represented our client (the plaintiff) in bringing an action for objection to claim.
The Issue — The Executory Force of a False Notarial Deed Obtained by Duress
A notarial deed is a powerful document permitting execution directly, but execution can be excluded where the underlying claim does not exist or is void (Civil Execution Act art. 44). The issues here were ① whether the loan claim actually existed, and ② whether the notarial deed had been signed under duress (threats).
How Changchun Helped
Changchun established that execution must not be allowed, proving ① that even the other party acknowledged the loan claim did not exist, making it plain that the deed was void at least as a fictitious declaration by collusion; and ② that the deed had been signed under threat, supported by objective evidence including medical records and recordings.
Outcome
The court granted our client's claim and disallowed compulsory execution under that notarial deed in full. Our client was freed from improper execution and from a long ordeal.
The existence of a notarial deed does not mean its execution must simply be endured. Where the claim does not actually exist, or the deed was signed under duress, compulsory execution can be stopped by an action for objection to claim. (Outcomes may differ depending on the facts of each matter.)