청구이의
1. Certificates No. 1051, 2014, drawn up by the Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff on October 28, 2014.
1. Basic facts
A. On October 28, 2014, the Defendant lent KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant loan”).
B. On October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) as of October 28, 2015, which is the addressee, the Defendant, the face value of KRW 20 million, the due date, and October 28, 2015, with the Defendant, and the notary public entrusted the preparation of a notarial deed to the law firm Cheongamam, and the notary public so requested the law firm Cheongamam to prepare a notarial deed (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with the purport that “When the said issuer delays the payment of the amount to the holders of the said note, the said issuer shall be deemed to have no objection thereto even if he/she is immediately subject to compulsory execution.”
【Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1】
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to repay the principal of the instant loan 400,000 won per month without interest, and the Plaintiff repaid to the Defendant as shown in the attached Form. As such, the Defendant’s claim for the instant loan was extinguished in entirety. (2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay interest of KRW 400,000 per month on May 9, 2016 in the attached Form. (B) Of the following, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 1 million per month on May 9, 2016 to the instant loan.
The above money is the money that the defendant borrowed from the plaintiff, and the defendant repaid the above borrowed money on May 14, 2016.
The remaining amount of the Defendant’s loan to the Plaintiff is 15 million won and 24% per annum from February 2, 2018 to the date of full payment.
B. The existence of a 1-interest agreement between the Defendant and the Plaintiff appears to have not been closely related to the lending of KRW 20 million under the condition of installment repayment over 50 times without interest, and there was no such special circumstance or sufficient economic power for the Defendant.