beta
Text
1. Compulsory execution based on the No. 257 No. 257, No. 2019, in a notary public’s C office against the Plaintiff by the Defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 24, 2019, the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed on promissory notes with the date of issue as of June 20, 2019, and the date of payment as of September 20, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “a notarial deed”) with the face value of KRW 12 million, the date of payment as of September 20, 2019, the date of issuance as of August 20, 2019, and the date of payment as of August 20, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “a notarial deed 2”) with respect to promissory notes with the face value of KRW 12 million as of August 20, 2019.
B. On August 29, 2019, the Defendant seized the Plaintiff’s corporeal movables based on No. 2019, respectively.
[Grounds for Recognition: Descriptions of Evidence A No. 1-1, 2, and 6]
2. The plaintiff asserted that in the process of borrowing money from the defendant from the beginning of December 2018, the plaintiff prepared and issued a notarial deed Nos. 1 and 2 to the defendant. However, the plaintiff asserts that the compulsory execution based on each notarial deed should not be permitted by asserting that all of the interest and principal calculated at the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act until August 20, 2019 are repaid.
3. According to the evidence Nos. 2-1 through 4, 3, and 4, the fact that a sum of KRW 49,964,00 is transferred from the Defendant’s deposit account to the Plaintiff’s deposit account from December 4, 2018 to August 20, 2019, and that KRW 80,256,00 is transferred from the Plaintiff’s deposit account to the Defendant’s deposit account.
However, in light of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9, 3, and 4, the above facts alone are insufficient to confirm that the sum of the amounts borrowed from the defendant is 49,964,00 won and that the principal and interest have been fully repaid. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that compulsory execution based on Nos. 1 and 2 shall be dismissed in its entirety is without merit.
However, in full view of the statements in subparagraph 1-7 and the purport of the whole pleadings in subparagraph 1-7, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 10 million from the Defendant on April 22, 2019, and KRW 120,000 per day, respectively.