beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s certificate of the preparation of C Office by a notary public against the Plaintiff is a monetary loan agreement No. 216 of 2017.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 36,580,000 from the Defendant over 12 occasions from May 21, 2015 to May 18, 2017, as indicated in the attached Table of Calculation.
B. On May 8, 2017, the Plaintiff, at the Defendant’s request, prepared and issued a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement No. 216 of 2017, a notary public’s office, the content of which is “30,000,000 won for rent, and 2% of interest monthly (payment on the last day)” (payment on December 30, 2017).
C. From June 12, 2015 to December 31, 2018, the Plaintiff repaid a total of KRW 39,150,000 to the Defendant over 49 times.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap1 to 5 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts of recognition, as a result of the repayment of the above amount as shown in the attached sheet of calculation, the Plaintiff’s above loan obligation on the basis of the last repayment date remains at the rate of 24% per annum from January 1, 2019 to the date of full payment.
B. As to this, the Defendant stated 30,000,000 won remaining after the settlement of the remaining debt amount at the time of the preparation of the above notarial deed as the loan on the notarial deed, and asserted that the Plaintiff paid only a part of the loan, but there is no specific assertion as to the fact that there was a loan other than the loan amount claimed by the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
C. Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Defendant KRW 3,004,271 as well as damages for delay at the rate of 24% per annum from January 1, 2019 to the date of full payment. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the above notarial deed shall not be permitted only to the portion exceeding the above money.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.