beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
A notary public of the plaintiffs against the defendant is a new and joint law office.
Reasons
1. Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (including branch numbers for those with branch numbers), evidence Nos. 5 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings, which are premised on the premise;
A. On April 27, 2009, Plaintiff A entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant who is running a credit business with the name of “F” and agreed to cover the expenses, interest, and principal in the order of the repayment, when the Plaintiff agreed to borrow KRW 350 million from the Defendant on October 26, 2009 at the maturity of payment, the rate of KRW 350 million per month, and the rate of arrears at the rate of 4% per month.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant loan agreement”). B.
On April 27, 2009, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff A KRW 39.5 million remaining after deducting the amount of KRW 10.5 million (= KRW 350 million x 3% per month) from the monthly interest rate of KRW 350 million out of the borrowed amount of KRW 350 million stipulated in the instant loan agreement.
C. On April 27, 2009, in order to secure the debt for the loan under the instant loan agreement with the Defendant, Plaintiff A entered into a mortgage agreement with the Defendant with the maximum debt amount of KRW 525 million with respect to the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, 174.9 square meters and its ground buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the Plaintiff, and with the Plaintiff A as the obligor A, and completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the name of the Defendant as to the instant real estate for this reason.
After that, on October 7, 2011, the Plaintiffs issued promissory notes with face value of KRW 350 million at face value, KRW 350 million at issue date, April 22, 2009, and the date of payment on October 15, 201, and the place of payment, respectively. The Defendant, on behalf of the Plaintiffs, entrusted a notary public with the preparation of authentic deeds of promissory notes at the new law office, and the said law office as of October 7, 2011, provides that the said law office shall recognize that there is no objection if the Plaintiffs delay the payment of the said promissory notes to the holders of the said bills as of October 7, 201.