logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2020.05.28 2019가단103692
청구이의
Text

1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is a law firm C, No. 257, April 2, 2015.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 2, 2015, the Defendant loaned KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff and D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) without interest (hereinafter “instant loan”). The Plaintiff and D agreed to pay the instant loan in 15 installments from April 2015 to June 2016.

B. On April 2, 2015, when an attorney-at-law in charge of notarial services fails to repay the instant loan upon the commission of the Plaintiff, Defendant, and D, a notary public drafted a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement (No. 257, 2015, hereinafter “notarial deed”) that recognizes that there is no objection even if compulsory execution is conducted.

C. From May 4, 2016 to October 10, 2018, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 17 million to the Defendant on a total of ten occasions, and the Plaintiff and D repaid a total of KRW 32.6 million to the Defendant.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, Eul 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the allegations and the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the loan of this case was fully repaid by the Plaintiff and D to the Defendant by paying the sum of KRW 32.6 million.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed cannot be permitted unless there are special circumstances.

On April 24, 2015, the Defendant: (a) borrowed additional KRW 3 million from the Plaintiff and D on April 24, 2015; (b) the Plaintiff still did not pay KRW 400,000 ( KRW 30 million + KRW 3 million-32.6 million); and (c) accordingly, the instant notarial deed’s execution should be maintained.

However, as seen earlier, the fact that the instant notarial deed was drafted while recognizing compulsory execution with respect to KRW 30 million for the instant loan is recognized, and even if the Plaintiff and D were to have borrowed it on April 24, 2015, it exceeds the scope of the instant notarial deed even if it is acknowledged that the Defendant borrowed it.

arrow