beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, No. 487, 2014, drawn up by Law Firm Effective in April 25, 2014.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 25, 2014, the Defendant, on behalf of the Plaintiff, entrusted a notary public with the preparation of a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement between the Defendant and the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff, along with a power of attorney and a certificate of seal impression as to the preparation of a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement between the Defendant and the Plaintiff. Accordingly, on April 25, 2014, the Defendant, “The Defendant, on April 25, 2014, set KRW 10,000,000 as the maturity date for payment to the Plaintiff on August 25, 2014 and delay damages, respectively, at 20% per annum. If the Plaintiff fails to perform the above loan obligation, a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement, stating that there is no objection thereto, was drawn up.”
B. On June 5, 2014, the Defendant, on behalf of the Plaintiff, entrusted the Plaintiff with the preparation of a notarial deed on a promissory note between the Defendant and the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff, accompanied by a power of attorney and a certificate of personal seal impression attached to the Plaintiff’s name regarding the preparation of a notarial deed on a promissory note, and accordingly, the notarial deed of a promissory note, which contains a content that recognizes compulsory execution as to a promissory note on a part of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each notarial deed of this case”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion argues that since each claim based on each of the notarial deeds of this case is extinguished due to repayment, compulsory execution based on each of the above notarial deeds shall not be permitted.
According to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 6 and 7, according to the purport of the whole pleadings, each of the notarial deeds in this case is as of January 29, 2015, as of January 29, 2015, "the plaintiff fully repaid each of the obligations based on each of the notarial deeds in this case, and the defendant recognized that it was received, each of the above obligations was extinguished."