beta
Text
1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff shall set the deadline for the No. 168 No. 168 No. 2010.
Reasons
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 3-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings in the testimony of the witness C, and there is no counter-proof.
On March 21, 2012, the Plaintiff prepared and executed a notarial deed stating that a notary public would have no objection even if he/she is immediately subject to compulsory execution on March 21, 2012, at No. 168 of the law firm reputation certificate, KRW 100,000 at par value, and the date of issuance March 21, 2012, the date of payment, March 21, 2013, and the Plaintiff, the payee, and the addressee, as the Defendant, that he/she would immediately be subject to compulsory execution (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).
B. On November 4, 2015, Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) paid KRW 150,000,000 to the Defendant.
2. Determination
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant and the 1st notarial deed of this case and the 1st notarial deed of this case are paid only to the principal, the interest exemption is agreed to be made, and the principal is paid and the debt is fully repaid, execution by the defendant's notarial deed of this case shall not be permitted. The defendant's assertion 2) The defendant did not have any exemption from the interest by the notarial deed of this case, and since the amount paid by the defendant remains 12,516,840 won as the interest is appropriated for the interest, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the principal amount of 12,516,840 won to the defendant
B. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5-1 to 4, Gap evidence 6-1 to 3, Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 3, and the whole purport of the arguments as a whole. The testimony of witness Eul alone is insufficient to reverse it, and there is no counter-proof.
1. On March 22, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) a notary public issued a law firm reputation certificate to the Defendant on March 22, 2012 at par value 50.