beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.10.15 2020가단5115906

청구이의

Text

1. A notary public belonging to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office against the Plaintiff of the Defendants on September 8, 2010 by D General Law Firm.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From August 3, 2007 to July 2010, the Plaintiff was the representative of E Co., Ltd. (which was ordered to be dissolved on December 1, 2014, and the liquidation was completed on December 1, 2017; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) for the purpose of providing consulting services, etc., and the Defendants engaged in the business of photographing derivatives in the trade name “F.”

B. On September 8, 2010, the Defendants: (a) determined the loan amount of KRW 37,000,000 from the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Company as of September 15, 2010; and (b) completed a notarial deed of cash loan for consumption on which the declaration of acceptance of compulsory execution is written (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

C. On March 25, 2020, the Defendants applied for a compulsory auction on the Plaintiff’s real estate on March 25, 2020, and rendered a decision of compulsory auction on March 27, 2020.

(U) On the other hand, the Defendants filed a lawsuit claiming a monetary payment based on the instant notarial deed by the Court No. 2020da514705, but the said notarial deed was dismissed on September 9, 2020 on the ground that the extinctive prescription of the claim under the said notarial deed has expired, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as is.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 6, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding the existence of the grounds for objection, the notarial deed of this case was prepared for the payment of the Defendants’ claims to the Plaintiff Company of the Plaintiff Company, and the above claims on the notarial deed constitute claims arising out of commercial activities, and it applies 5 years extinctive prescription of commercial claims.

However, since it is apparent that five years have already elapsed from September 15, 2010, which is the date of payment of claims under the above notarial deed, the above claims were extinguished by prescription.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case cannot be permitted unless there are special circumstances.

B. As to the Defendants’ assertion.