beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s payment order issued on July 8, 2016 for the loans extended by Seogu District Court Branch 2016 tea 1614 against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 19, 2006, the Plaintiff received 26,000,000 won from the Defendant, and agreed to pay 30,000,000 won to the Defendant until November 18, 2006 and pay interest at the interest rate of 10% per annum.
(B) The Plaintiff, a joint and several surety and a real collateral surety, bear the obligation to repay the borrowed money. D completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on the E-owned land and building on October 19, 2006, the maximum debt amount of which is 35,000,000,000 won, the obligor, and the mortgagee, as the Defendant of the right to collateral security.
(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). B.
The Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for payment of the instant loan and interest and delay damages thereon, as the Seogu District Court Branch Branch 2016Ka1614, and the said court issued an order to pay the Plaintiff the amount of the instant loan and the interest and delay damages therefrom, and on July 18, 2016, the said court issued an order to pay the Defendant the payment of the amount of KRW 30,000,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of 10% per annum from October 19, 2006 to the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.
(hereinafter “instant payment order”). The instant payment order was served on July 22, 2016 on the Plaintiff, and was finalized on August 6, 2016.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3, 15, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. On March 5, 2007, the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) paid KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant and repaid all of the instant loan. Even if not, the Plaintiff transferred money to the Defendant by December 18, 2009, and partly repaid the instant loan. The Defendant was fully paid the balance of the instant loan from D around September 2010. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the instant payment order should be rejected. 2) The Defendant’s assertion.