beta
Text
1. A notary public of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) written on October 8, 2013.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff borrowed money from the Defendant from September 14, 2007 to October 2013, and repeated transactions of repaying interest and principal.
B. On October 8, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff’s debt owed to the Defendant from the law firm Leesan was KRW 32,00,000 for principal and accrued interest of KRW 22,80,000,000 for a notary public located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Guro-gu and KRW 1125-1, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted the notarial deeds of No. 608 and 609 of the above law firm preparation document (hereinafter “each notarial deeds of this case”) with the following contents:
Article 1 (Purpose) of the No. 608 No. 1 No. 608 No. 1 (Purpose) The Defendant lent KRW 22,800,000 to the Plaintiff on October 8, 2013, and the Plaintiff borrowed it.
Article 2 (Repayment Period) No interest shall accrue on March 31, 2014 (Interest).
Article 8 (Recognition and Recognition of Compulsory Execution) When the plaintiff has failed to discharge his pecuniary obligation under this contract, the plaintiff shall recognize and admit that there is no objection even if compulsory execution has been effected immediately.
Article 1 (Purpose) of the No. 609 No. 1 (Purpose) The defendant shall lend KRW 32,000,000 to the plaintiff on October 8, 2013, and the plaintiff shall borrow it.
Article 2 (Repayment Period) Interest on March 31, 2014 (Interest) shall be 15% per annum and shall be paid on the 25th of each month.
Article 8 (Recognition and Recognition of Compulsory Execution) When the plaintiff has failed to discharge his pecuniary obligation under this contract, the plaintiff shall recognize and admit that there is no objection even if compulsory execution has been effected immediately.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 2 (including each branch number in case where there is a branch number), Eul evidence 1 to 27, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the main claim
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is invalid to the extent that the obligation under each of the instant notarial deeds exceeds the principal and interest of the loan obligations remaining between the Plaintiff and the Defendant when preparing them. In full view of the Plaintiff’s loan and repayment details, the Plaintiff’s repayment was made except KRW 24,325,22.