beta
Text
1. Promissory notes, No. 49, 2013, drawn up by the Defendant against the Plaintiff, by a notary public, on March 13, 2013.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 13, 2013, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 85 million from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan”) with the maturity of payment for one month, and issued a promissory note in the amount of KRW 150 million with the Defendant as the addressee on the same day, and written and issued a notarial deed of promissory note stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) on March 13, 2013 without entering the agreed interest rate.
B. Upon repayment of the instant loan, the Plaintiff paid each of the Defendant KRW 65 million on June 14, 2013, and KRW 20 million on the following day.
C. On November 5, 2013, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order as to the Plaintiff’s claim for dividend payment against the Republic of Korea based on the Notarial Deed of Promissory Notes issued by Seoul Central District Court 2013TTT No. 33773.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 4, and purport of the whole pleadings
2. Prior to the determination as to the cause of the claim, if the Plaintiff appropriated the amount of KRW 65 million and KRW 20 million paid to the Defendant with the repayment of the instant loan to the Defendant in the order of the interest and the principal calculated by the rate of 6% per annum (if there is no particular indication as to interest, it shall be based on interest at an annual rate of 6% per annum as prescribed by the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act) as stated in the attached statement of the details of satisfaction of obligation. As such, the compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of the instant promissorysory note shall be dismissed only for the remaining loans of KRW 1,302,953 and the amount exceeding the interest calculated by the rate of 6% per annum from June 16, 2013 to the date of full repayment.
3. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion is that the Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff, deducting KRW 3 million from the monthly advance payment calculated at the rate of KRW 3.6% per annum, the agreement was made to pay KRW 12 million to the Defendant instead of the Defendant’s debt, and the Plaintiff actually paid KRW 85 million. However, each of the statements in the evidence in subparagraphs B through 5 are alone.