Successful Provisional Attachment of Real Estate Through Submission of a Supplementary Statement Despite Insufficient Loan Evidence

1. Overview of the Case

In a dispute related to a monetary loan, an individual client applied for a provisional attachment on real estate due to the debtor's delay in repayment. However, the supporting materials held by the client lacked a clear basis for the loan, and in particular there was a problem of a discrepancy between the name on the agreement and the actual debtor. Accordingly, the court, through an order to correct, demanded that the fact of the debtor's direct assumption of the debt be substantiated, and the client was placed in a situation where the provisional attachment itself could be frustrated.

The biggest issue in this case was how to prove that the debtor was substantively the party who borrowed the money, in a situation where clear written evidence of the fact of the loan payment was lacking. Law Firm Insight, rather than relying on merely formal documents, collected various circumstantial materials such as the actual flow of the monetary transaction and statements from related persons.

In particular, with respect to the problem of the name on the agreement being inconsistent with the provisional attachment application, we constructed the argument centering on the point that the debtor had substantively received the money and bore the corresponding repayment obligation. On this basis, in the correction statement we persuasively organized the substance of the transaction and the structure of legal liability, attached the related materials, and submitted them to the court.

The court accepted the substantiating materials and arguments submitted through the correction statement and granted the decision on the provisional attachment, and the provisional attachment on the debtor's real estate was promptly executed. As a result, the client came to secure substantive protection of its rights in the future main lawsuit and compulsory execution proceedings. This case is an example in which, even where there was no clear evidence of the loan, the provisional attachment was made successful by organizing the substantive transaction relationship and liability and effectively correcting the application. Law Firm Insight, on the basis of legal logic and procedural strategy, protected the client's rights even in a case where evidence was lacking.