beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.02.13 2017가단104275

청구이의

Text

1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is a notarial deed of money consumption loan agreement No. 3297, 2012.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 24, 2012, the Plaintiff, on the part of the Defendant, prepared and executed a notarial deed of a monetary consumer loan agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) No. 3297 of the 2012, stating that “if the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 110,00,000 from the Defendant on September 24, 2012, with a maturity of KRW 30% per annum and fails to perform its obligation, a notary public, which stated that “if the Plaintiff borrowed 110,000,000 from the Defendant, with a maturity of 30% per annum of September 24,

B. On July 25, 2012, the Defendant remitted KRW 63,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and KRW 32,00,000 to D operating C, respectively.

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 10,00,000 to the Defendant on December 5, 2012, and KRW 1,300,000 on December 26, 2012, and KRW 6,000,00 on April 5, 2013, respectively.

Based on the instant notarial deed, on February 20, 2017, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction of real estate No. 107 and No. 202 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, the Plaintiff owned on February 20, 2017, and received a decision to commence compulsory auction as F of this Court.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including additional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On July 24, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff would lend KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant when preparing the instant notarial deed. However, on July 25, 2012, the Plaintiff prepared the instant notarial deed. However, on July 25, 2012, the amount actually borrowed after being transferred from the Defendant only KRW 63,000,000 is KRW 63,00.

However, since the Defendant paid KRW 17,300,000 in total as the repayment of the above loan, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case shall be denied only for the portion exceeding KRW 45,700,000.

3. Determination

A. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the aforementioned evidence as stated in Gap evidence Nos. 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 6, and the witness G testimony and the purport of the entire pleadings. (A) The Plaintiff’s ASEAN on June 21, 2012.