beta
Text
1. Certificates No. 2, 2015, drawn up by C, a notary public of the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office, against the Defendant’s Plaintiff on January 5, 2015.
Reasons
Basic Facts
Around October 2013, the Defendant decided to purchase 2,200 within the limit of KRW 135 million from D and paid KRW 100 million. However, D transferred only 1,700 and requested D to refund the purchase price on the wind that did not deliver the remainder of 500.
D: (a) On January 5, 2015, the Defendant returned the purchase price of KRW 90 million to the Defendant; (b) on January 5, 2015, the Plaintiff and joint issuers issued a promissory note of KRW 45 million at par value to the Defendant; and (c) on the same day, the notarial deed of this case was written by requesting C to a notary public belonging to the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office (hereinafter “notarial deed”).
D repaid 25 million won to the Defendant on June 30, 2015.
【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence Nos. 2, 5, and 6, the parties’ assertion to the purport of the entire pleadings, D was issued a written confirmation from the defendant to the effect that, on July 25, 2015, in order to repay the Defendant’s remaining debt amounting to KRW 20 million ( KRW 45 million - 25 million - 25 million), the Defendant issued a check to the effect that “the purchase price has been paid in full and the collateral documents have been returned” (Articles. 2-1 and 2).
Therefore, inasmuch as the bill obligations based on the Notarial Deed of this case are fully repaid, compulsory execution should be dismissed.
On July 25, 2015, the Defendant sought to receive KRW 20 million for a check from D, but claimed other claims against D and brought the check to D, and the Defendant did not receive the remainder of the obligation. In that sense, the Defendant teared the above confirmation (No. 2-1 and No. 2).
Therefore, inasmuch as the obligation based on the instant notarial deed remains in excess of KRW 20 million, compulsory execution should not be permitted only for the exceeding portion.
The key issue of this case is the 20 million won foot brought by E on July 25, 2015.