청구이의
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant belongs to the former District Prosecutors' Office against the plaintiffs.
1. The reasons for this part of this Court’s reasoning are the same as that of the second to 18th judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the reasoning is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. On May 2015, the Plaintiff A and the Defendant, who are the primary debtor, agreed that the Defendant would no longer assert or exempt the Plaintiff from the obligation to borrow the instant loan.
② On November 5, 2014, the Defendant lent KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff and set interest at 120% per annum (10% per annum) unlike the entries in the notarial deed in this case, which is null and void as an excessive interest agreement contrary to good morals and other social order.
③ On November 5, 2014, the Defendant received a total of KRW 23,60,000 as indicated in the attached Table, such as receiving KRW 2 million from the Plaintiffs on the basis of advance interest. Based on the instant notarial deed, the Defendant received KRW 430,500 and KRW 746,200 from the auction procedure for the corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiffs. The Defendant offset the Defendant’s tort damages liability of KRW 300,000 against the Defendant’s tort liability of KRW 25,076,70 on the instant notarial deed. As such, the compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed ought to be denied from the principal or interest.
The plaintiffs' assertion of repayment is not consistent. The plaintiffs' legal representative is finally organized on October 30, 2018, and it is decided on the plaintiffs' assertion of repayment based on the legal brief submitted to this court.
B. We examine the determination as to the claim 1 above (1). The Plaintiff’s evidence No. 19, which was admitted as evidence to this part of the claim, merely appears to have been prepared in the course of settling the loan debt of this case between the Plaintiff A and the Defendant, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant would no longer issue the loan debt of this case, or that the Defendant would be relieved of the debt of this case, and the remainder.