209 group 150327 Objection

Park A (57 years old, South)

(56 years old, South)

April 22, 2010

May 20, 2010

1. The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff on August 26, 1998 based on a notarial deed No. 480 of 1998, in which the 3/1 joint law office was prepared by a notary public on August 26, 1998.

2. This Court approves the decision to suspend compulsory execution on January 6, 2010 regarding the Plaintiff’s case of applying for the suspension of compulsory execution No. 2010car3.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged according to the evidence A No. 1.

A. The Plaintiff, from the Defendant, was in arrears with the rent from October 1996 to July 26, 1998 while using the 2nd floor among the 5th floor located in Busan Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si

B. On August 26, 1998, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to pay the sum of KRW 6,00,000,000 in installments each month from September 10, 1998 to February 10, 201. However, in the event that the Plaintiff fails to pay the said installment on more than two occasions, the Plaintiff would naturally lose the benefit of time without any separate notice or peremptory notice, and the Plaintiff would have no objection to the remainder immediately subject to compulsory execution.

C. On August 26, 1998, a notary public signed a notarial deed of a debt repayment contract (hereinafter referred to as the “notarial deed of this case”) as 480 on the commission of the original and the defendant on August 26, 1998.

2. The assertion and judgment

The plaintiff asserts that since the payment of installment payments on the debt based on the notarial deed of this case was lost as of October 10, 1998, and the extinctive prescription of the above debt has been completed at the expiration of five to ten years from that time, the compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case shall not be allowed.

In this case, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed that the payment of the installment on the debt on the notarial deed of this case would naturally lose the benefit of time as seen earlier, and the fact that the plaintiff failed to fully pay the debt on the notarial deed of this case is not a dispute between the parties. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant should have lost the benefit on October 10, 1998, which is the due date for the second installment payment, and thus, the plaintiff was liable to pay the full amount of the debt to the plaintiff. The lawsuit of this case is obvious in the record that the lawsuit of this case was filed on December 22, 2009 (the seizure and collection order of the defendant was filed on December 14, 2009, which was after the expiration of the due date for the seizure and collection order of the claim of this case) from the point of time on December 14, 2009.

Therefore, since the debt under the notarial deed of this case is extinguished by prescription, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case shall not be permitted. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judges Lee Dong-ho