Background
Our client lent the opposing party KRW 350 million and took a promissory note notarial deed as security. The opposing party then brought an action for objection to claim seeking to bar compulsory execution under that notarial deed, asserting that "I never borrowed any such money, and the note was written under duress of distress and is therefore void" — and the first instance court found for the opposing party (a loss for our client). Changchun represented our lending client (the defendant) on appeal.
The Issue — Was the Loan Actually Made, and Is the Notarial Deed Void?
The key questions were ① whether a loan of KRW 350 million had actually been made, and ② whether the notarial deed was void as an unfair juristic act made in a state of distress (Civil Act art. 104).
How Changchun Helped
Changchun (attorney Sungjoong Kim) proved the loan by drawing together ① the probative force of dispositive documents including the promissory note and memorandum of agreement personally signed by the opposing party (Supreme Court 2018Da275727, among others); ② ledgers recording the monetary dealings; and ③ text messages and written confirmations in which the opposing party acknowledged the debt and promised repayment. We also established that the mere fact of having been subject to an application for compulsory auction could not establish a "state of distress."
Outcome
The appellate court set aside the first instance judgment and dismissed the opposing party's claim. Our client reversed the loss at first instance, preserved the right to execute under the notarial deed, and recovered the costs of the litigation.
Even an opponent's attempt to block execution through an objection to claim can be reversed on appeal where the probative force of dispositive documents and the objective circumstances are presented with precision. (Outcomes may differ depending on the facts of each matter.)