청구이의
1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is a monetary loan agreement No. 110 of C, No. 2011, dated 201.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. A. Around March 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to be supplied with a three-ton vessel (hereinafter “instant vessel”) of KRW 67,500,000 (hereinafter “instant contract”). Around that time, the Plaintiff paid the down payment of KRW 9,00,000 to the Defendant.
B. On October 25, 2010, the Plaintiff paid KRW 26,000,00 to the Defendant as the price under the instant contract.
C. On March 14, 201, the Plaintiff prepared and executed a notarized deed of monetary loan agreement No. 110 of the document No. 32,50,000 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the following contents for the payment of the remainder amount of KRW 32,50,000 under the instant contract (i.e., KRW 67,50,000 - KRW 9,000,000 - KRW 26,600,000 for engine inspection, etc. (i.e., KRW 32,500,000, KRW 100,000) by a notary public of the following contents for the payment of KRW 32,60,000,000 for an engine inspection (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).
On November 22, 2010, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 36 million from the Defendant.
By June 30, 2011, repayment shall be made in lump sum.
Interest shall be paid in 500,000 won each month from January 2, 2011 to June 30, 2011.
When the plaintiff delays the repayment of principal or interest, the delayed principal or interest shall be paid to the defendant at the rate of 30% per annum.
On January 6, 2012, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 50,000,000 from D Association as “FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFR
(Clearly, the plaintiff designated the defendant and E as the recipient of the loan and paid the loan directly to the defendant and E at D Association). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 10, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 4 (including the branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The parties' assertion
A. On January 6, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to the Defendant, and KRW 40 million to E designated by the Defendant, on the instant notarial deed.