beta
Text
1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is on the notarial deed of monetary loan contract No. 825 of 2007.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 8, 2007, upon the commission of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, a notary public of November 8, 2007 lent to the Plaintiff the money loan agreement (Won 10,000,000) signed by the Plaintiff on November 8, 2007 (Article 1) and the Plaintiff borrowed the loan (Article 2). The repayment of the loan shall be made in a lump sum payment on November 26, 2008 (Article 2). Interest shall be paid at 49% per annum (Article 3). If the Plaintiff fails to perform his/her monetary obligation under this contract, it was immediately recognized that there is no objection even if he/she is subject to compulsory execution (Article 9).
B. On December 15, 2017, the Defendant applied for a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff based on the instant authentic deed (Seoul Central District Court 2017TTTT 117938).
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap 1, 3, and 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The plaintiff asserted that although the plaintiff borrowed money from the defendant before the preparation of the notarial deed of this case and made a criminal complaint and paid the money, despite the defendant did not have any obligation to act with the same person as organized violence, the plaintiff entrusted the preparation of the notarial deed of this case to the defendant despite the fact that the defendant did not have any obligation to act with the same person as organized violence, and even if not, the defendant did not have paid the loan to the plaintiff under the above monetary loan contract of this case (hereinafter "the loan contract of this case"). Thus, the defendant did not have any obligation to return the loan to the defendant.
Nevertheless, the defendant's execution based on the notarial deed of this case is improper and thus, it is not permitted.
B. The Defendant’s rebuttal and assertion did not threaten the Plaintiff, and 5 million won in cash, which was held by the Defendant under the loan agreement of this case, and paid 10 million won to the Plaintiff by lending 5 million won in cash from neighboring D.