beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is a law firm’s repayment contract No. 4094, Dec. 2, 2011, No. 3094.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant: (a) as a creditor and an obligor’s agent, and (b) as the Plaintiff’s agent, promised that the Plaintiff pay to the Defendant the borrowed amount of KRW 6.9 million incurred on August 10, 201, and KRW 3 million incurred on November 22, 2011, up to December 5, 2011; and (c) requested the Defendant to prepare an authentic deed of a debt repayment agreement with the content that “if delay, the Plaintiff shall pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 30% per annum.”
(C) The notarial deed No. 4094 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) was drawn up by a notary public on December 2, 201, 201.
B. Based on the instant notarial deed, the Defendant applied for the issuance of a seizure and collection order under the Daegu District Court Residential Support 2018TT 488 with respect to the Plaintiff’s claim against D Co., Ltd. and E Co., Ltd., and received a decision of acceptance on March 28, 2018.
Accordingly, the defendant collected 13,353,824 won from the E Union, and reported the collection to the above court on April 2, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the parties' arguments;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Since the interest rate on the instant loan claim exceeds the maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, the excess portion is null and void. In light of this, if the Plaintiff appropriated the instant loan claim to be repaid to the Defendant, all of the instant loan claims were extinguished by the repayment, and the Defendant collected KRW 13,353,824 by compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed. Nevertheless, the Defendant collected KRW 13,353,824 by compulsory execution. Accordingly, the Defendant must return the excess amount and the collection amount to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment. 2) The Defendant drafted the instant notarial deed by arbitrarily supplementing the contents after receiving the Plaintiff’s signature from the Plaintiff on the letter of delegation.
Therefore, the notarial deed of this case is legitimate.