청구이의이소
No. 1016 of the deed prepared by the defendant's notary public against the plaintiff on April 1, 2013.
Facts of recognition
According to the facts stated in Gap's evidence 1 through 3 and Eul's evidence 1 through 3 (including branch numbers), and to the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant, as to promissory notes as of August 24, 2012 issued by the plaintiff, 106,40,000 won at par value, and the due date of March 31, 2013, a notary public has received a notarized deed No. 1016 of the deed No. 1016 prepared on April 1, 2013 (hereinafter "notarial deed of this case"), as the repayment of the said promissory notes, the plaintiff paid KRW 74,90,00 as the repayment of the said promissory notes from April 16, 2013 to June 19, 2014 to Incheon District Court's June 19, 2015 to 304,000 won, and the remainder of the notarial deeds deposited by the defendant under the compulsory execution of this case as of 40,504050 won.
Judgment
If the obligor is to pay expenses and interest of one or more obligations, and the person effecting performance has effected insufficient performance to satisfy the entire obligation, such performance shall be appropriated in the order of the expenses, the interest and the principal.
(Article 479(1) of the Civil Act provides that the expenses necessary for compulsory execution shall be borne by the debtor and the debtor shall be preferentially reimbursed by the execution (Article 53(1) of the Civil Execution Act). As such, with respect to executive titles ordering a payment of money, the whole executory power shall not be excluded unless the expenses for execution are reimbursed.
(See Supreme Court Decisions 89Da2356, 89Da12121, Sept. 26, 1989; 91Da41620, Apr. 10, 1992, etc.). According to these legal principles and the above-mentioned facts, compulsory execution against the Plaintiff by the Defendant based on the Notarial Deed of this case against the Plaintiff is reasonable to be dismissed only to the extent that it exceeds KRW 4,824,080, which corresponds to the execution cost.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and it is so decided as per Disposition.