beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 2, 2015, a notary public signed a monetary loan agreement with the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the content that “The Defendant lent KRW 3,000,000 to the Plaintiff on October 2, 2015, and the Plaintiff borrowed it. The period and method of payment should be paid KRW 3,00,000 on January 30, 2016. The interest is not agreed. In the event the debtor fails to perform his/her monetary obligation under this contract, the said deed of this case was written to the effect that there was no objection even if he/she was immediately subject to compulsory execution” (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).
B. In addition, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a notarial deed under the Monetary Loan Agreement (hereinafter “Notarial Deed of 2014”) stating that “A notary public shall borrow KRW 9,000,000 to the Plaintiff on July 9, 2014, and the Plaintiff shall borrow it. The method and method of maturity shall be 2,250,000 won on the 25th day of each month from September to December 2014, and shall be 2,250,000 in four equal installments. Interest shall not be agreed. If the obligor fails to perform his/her monetary obligation under this Agreement, he/she shall immediately be subject to compulsory execution, even if he/she is deemed to have no objection.” On March 16, 2016, the Plaintiff drafted a notarial deed of 20,500,000 won on the Defendant’s face value, and even if a promissory note was issued on June 30, 2016, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s promissory note was issued as a notary public without delay.
hereinafter referred to as "notarial deed of commitment".
(C) On the other hand, on March 27, 2017, the Defendant filed an application for the seizure of corporeal movables with the Plaintiff as the title of execution by using the instant notarial deed as the title of execution, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit in response thereto. The Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the grounds for recognition, and (i) Nos. 1, 4, and 1 through 2.