청구이의
1. Certificate No. 451, 2015, drawn up by the Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff on May 26, 2015.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 26, 2015, a notary public of May 26, 2015 (hereinafter “notarial deeds of this case”) drafted a monetary loan agreement No. 451 of 200,000,000 from the Defendant on May 26, 2015, which read that “the Plaintiff borrowed at a rate of 25% from the due date, September 30, 2015, and the interest rate for delay shall be 25% from the due date” between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
B. On May 28, 2015, Nonparty C’s name deposited KRW 10,000,000 with the deposit account in the name of Nonparty D, the Plaintiff’s wife, and on the same day, from the deposit account to Nonparty E twice, KRW 5,00,000 and KRW 4,940,800 were transferred respectively.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserted 1) The defendant agreed to lend KRW 20 million to the plaintiff, and prepared the notarial deed of this case. On May 28, 2015, the plaintiff paid KRW 10,000,000 to the non-party F, and if the plaintiff paid KRW 10,000,000 to the non-party F, it would be changed to transfer it to E, and the plaintiff would not eventually borrow money from the defendant. Thus, the notarial deed of this case is null and void, and the execution based on the notarial deed of this case should not be allowed.2) The defendant requested the non-party C to lend KRW 10,00,00 to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff paid KRW 10,00,000 to the non-party F with the deposit account in the name of E used by F. Thus, the notarial deed of this case is valid as to KRW 10,000,00 and interest amount.
B. We examine the judgment of the court below. The defendant lent only KRW 20,000,000, which is the principal of the loan on the notarial deed of this case, to the plaintiff, and only KRW 10,000,000, which is the principal of the loan on the notarial deed of this case, to the plaintiff. The notarial deed of this case is recognized to the purport that the notarial deed of this case is effective within the scope of the loan principal and interest.
Furthermore, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff.