beta
Text
1. Promissory notes, No. 436, 2014, issued by the Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On June 23, 2014, the Plaintiff and C, the father of the Plaintiff, issued a promissory note with “150 million won in face value,” the payee, the Defendant, and the date of issuance on June 23, 2014, and the due date on October 23, 2014 (hereinafter “the Promissory Notes”). A notary public drafted a notarial deed to the effect that the said Promissory Notes will immediately be subject to compulsory execution on June 23, 2014 (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings]
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant lawsuit was filed only on March 2, 2018, after three years from October 23, 2014, which was the date of the payment of the instant promissory note, and that the Defendant’s claim based on the instant promissory note had already expired before the instant lawsuit was filed.
As to this, the Defendant asserts that the period of extinctive prescription of the instant promissory note claim was interrupted since the Plaintiff continued to promise to repay the instant promissory note at least twice on October 2017, as well as that the Plaintiff urged and urged the Plaintiff to pay the instant promissory note at least twice on the first order of October 2017, and the instant notarial deed was issued a decision to commence compulsory sale of the Plaintiff’s real estate on January 15, 2018, with its title within six
B. We examine the judgment, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 appears to be a separate document on other claims unrelated to the instant promissory note claim, and witness D cannot secure objectivity as employee, and the Defendant’s voluntary auction as asserted by the Defendant appears to be based on a separate collateral from the instant promissory note claim. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s submission of the evidence alone, the Plaintiff promised to repay the instant promissory note, solely on the basis of the evidence presented by the Defendant.
It is not enough to recognize that the defendant urged or notified the plaintiff to repay.