beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is on the authentic deed of Promissory Notes No. 182, No. 2017, No. 182, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 21, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are corporations with business purposes, such as each construction business, and the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 85 million to the Defendant on the grounds that the funds are needed before the Plaintiff’s location of the company.
B. On February 21, 2017, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note with the face value of KRW 50 million, and the due date as of May 30, 2017, in order to secure the debt of the said loan, and on May 22, 2017, a notary public prepared a notarial deed of a promissory note No. 182 (hereinafter “notarial deed of a promissory note”) with respect to the said promissory note, and issued it to the Defendant.
C. On April 4, 2017, the Plaintiff wired the amount of KRW 60 million to the bank account of the Daeyang Integrated Power Company designated by the Defendant to repay the above borrowed amount and repaid KRW 60 million out of the borrowed amount.
The Defendant received a collection order of KRW 25 million from September 13, 2017 with the title of execution of the notarial deed of the Promissory Notes in the instant case as the title of execution, and collected and executed the said collection amount of KRW 24,96,679 on the 19th of the same month.
E. The expenses incurred by the Defendant in the execution procedure of the above collection order are KRW 4,000, and the expenses incurred by a certified judicial scrivener in order to request a collection order are KRW 220,000.
[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap 1 to 5, and 7, and the whole purport of the pleading
2. Determination:
A. Unless the Plaintiff expressed otherwise in light of the health and transactional rule as to the validity of the promissory note notarial deed in this case to the Defendant, it is reasonable to deem that the executory power based on the promissory note notarial deed in this case is within the limit of KRW 50 million per face value of a promissory note, but until the Plaintiff’s debt to the Defendant is extinguished in full, the notarial deed in this case was prepared and delivered with the intent of the parties who secured the above obligation and maintain executory power based on the above notarial deed.
This is about 60 million won to the defendant around April 4, 2017.