beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.09.11 2014가합7800

청구이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Around August 26, 2009, the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor”) designated and lent KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff with interest rate of KRW 30% per annum and due date of payment as of September 26, 2009 (hereinafter “instant loan”). In order to secure this, the Defendant prepared a notarial deed under a money loan loan agreement (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) as of No. 812, No. C’s 2009, a notary public’s 2009, as of August 11, 201, and the Defendant received the instant loan claim from the supplementary intervenor on or around August 11, 2014, and thereafter, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff’s property is seized as executive title.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff paid KRW 50,00,000 to the Intervenor’s Intervenor on October 30, 2009 through October 22, 2010 as indicated in the following table, and repaid the principal of the instant loan in full. From October 30, 209 to October 11, 2010, the Plaintiff paid KRW 14,80,000,000 as interest on the instant loan, on nine occasions.

Therefore, since the execution claim of this case was entirely extinguished by payment before the supplementary intervenor transferred to the defendant, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case cannot be permitted.

The amount of money paid on October 30, 200 5,00,000 on October 30, 2009 as interest on the principal and interest on October 30, 200 ; 30,400 on November 30, 300 1,40,400,400 on November 30, 209; 5,000,000 on May 30, 200 ; 1,40,50,000 on December 31, 200, 208; 1,50,000,007 on February 26, 2007; 1, 200,000; 3,50,000 on May 31, 201, 200, 2000;

B. The Defendant Intervenor issued a financing bill to the Plaintiff, separate from the instant loan, via D (hereinafter “D”) operated by the Intervenor.

However, the details of payments asserted by the plaintiff are different from the above financing bill.