beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 마산지원 2018.01.11 2016가단106530

청구이의

Text

1. The defendant's notary public C belonging to the original district public prosecutor's office against the plaintiff was prepared on July 27, 2016, No. 319 of the 2016.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, around 2007, are the motive students of the Changwon University of Changsung, who were aware of for about 10 years since 2007.

B. On July 27, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted at a notary public C office a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement with the following contents:

(No. 319 of the 2016 Certificate No. 2016, hereinafter “instant No. notarial deeds”). (1) On July 26, 2016, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 60 million from the Defendant.

② From January 1, 2017 to August 203, 203, the Plaintiff shall pay 200,000 won each month to the Defendant in installments.

③ The Plaintiff shall pay 50,000 won per month interest on the above loan to the Defendant.

(4) If the Plaintiff delays the payment of principal or interest, the delayed principal or interest shall be paid damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum.

⑤ When the Plaintiff fails to perform his/her obligation to borrow the borrowed money, the Plaintiff has no objection to compulsory execution immediately.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not bear the obligation to borrow KRW 60 million against the Defendant, but agreed to pay KRW 60 million by the Defendant’s duress, and the instant notarial deed was prepared by the Defendant’s coercion. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant notarial deed is void due to the Defendant’s coercion, and thus, it should not be subject to compulsory execution based on its validity.

The defendant asserts that since 2007, the amount loaned to the plaintiff by cash, account transfer, credit card use, etc. was settled as KRW 60 million and the notarial deed of this case was prepared, and that there was no coercion by the plaintiff in the process.

B. On May 24, 2016, at around 10:00 on May 24, 2016, the Defendant inflicted injury upon the Plaintiff’s cell phone at his/her domicile, and destroyed the Plaintiff’s cell phone by leaving the phone owned by the Plaintiff on the floor on July 2016. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 27320, Jul. 2, 2016>