beta
Text
1. A notary public of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff No. 183, 2012.
Reasons
1. Determination on the counterclaim by Defendant B
A. The parties’ assertion (1) Since Defendant B’s assertion is invalid as a monetary loan agreement on the No. 183 No. 183 of money loan agreement on the No. 2012 No. 183 (hereinafter “instant No. notarial deed”) was made with a false declaration of agreement, the compulsory execution based on the said notarial deed should be denied.
(2) On February 29, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 110,00,00 to Defendant B on February 29, 2012 as interest rate of KRW 2.5% per month and due date of reimbursement on February 28, 2013. Defendant B loaned to the Plaintiff on April 23, 2012, KRW 10,000,000 per month, and KRW 5,000,000 per month, and KRW 5,8,45,00,000 per month, and year;
7. 13. 3,00,000 won has been repaid respectively. Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the principal and interest 29,215,482 won remaining after the repayment of the said money to the Plaintiff and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 30% per annum from July 14, 2012 to the date of full payment.
B. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff lent KRW 110,00,00 to defendant B on February 29, 2012 as interest rate of KRW 2.5%, and it is recognized that a notarial deed for a monetary loan for consumption was prepared until February 28, 2013, but it is deemed that Gap's certificate No. 1, Eul, 1, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 16, 17, 20, 20, 28, 34, 35 (including each number), and the whole purport of the arguments in witness E's testimony, the above notarial deed for a monetary loan for consumption under the above notarial deed is null and void as a result of a false conspiracy, taking full account of the following circumstances acknowledged as comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances:
Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case should not be permitted.
(1) On February 29, 2012, between the Plaintiff and Defendant B, Defendant B paid the Plaintiff KRW 110,00,000 to the wages from February 28, 2007 to February 28, 2012. The notarial deeds were prepared in the purport that the Plaintiff re-loans the said money to Defendant B. On the same day, Defendant B remitted KRW 110,000,000 to the Plaintiff by account transfer. The Plaintiff immediately issued 110,000,000,000.