beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff entered into a monetary loan agreement (No. 1590), No. 1590, 2013.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 11, 2013, a notary public: (a) the Defendant lent KRW 20,000,000 to B; and (b) the Plaintiff drafted a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed”) No. 1590, 2013, stating that the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the said loan obligation.
B. On June 26, 2015, the Defendant: (a) seized the instant notarial deed as executive title; (b) the claimed amount of KRW 6,00,000,000, and interest KRW 0,000, and (c) the corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff were seized (Gwanju District Court 2015No. 28555); (b) from B on the same day, the 6,50,000 won (the claimed amount of KRW 6,00,000 for enforcement cost of KRW 50,000) was withdrawn on the 30th of the same month.
C. As of June 26, 2015, B and the Plaintiff’s debt amount based on the Notarial Deed was the principal amount of KRW 6,000,000 and delay damages amount of KRW 3,841,631.
On November 26, 2015, the Defendant again seized the instant corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff, with the amount of KRW 4,000,000 as principal and interest KRW 1,56,164 as the title of execution.
(Reasons for Recognition) The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The following facts or circumstances are acknowledged in full view of the facts of the judgment under paragraph (1) and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the Defendant, as the Gwangju District Court 2015No2855, took only the principal out of the loan interest on the instant notarial deed at the time of seizure of the corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff as the Seoul District Court 2015No2855, and the said seizure was withdrawn after repayment of the principal and execution expenses. ② At the time of withdrawal of the above seizure, it is not deemed that the Defendant agreed on when the corporeal or the Plaintiff and the damages for delay would have been repaid by any means, and it is not deemed that the Defendant taken measures to secure the claim for damages for delay from the time of withdrawal of the above seizure to the time of seizure of the corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff under the Gwangju District Court 2015No