beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2.A notary public shall be a law firm until this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. No. 4011, 2006, No. 4011, No. 4011, a notary public borrowed money loan No. 306, Jan. 6, 2005 at interest rate of 66% per annum. The plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed this.
(2) On June 5, 2006, the Plaintiff and C requested that the Defendant exempt the agreed interest during the period when economic circumstances are difficult, and the Defendant set and lent KRW 6,00,000 as of June 5, 2006 at interest rate of 66% per annum. However, the maturity shall be until September 5, 2006, and if the repayment is not made, the Defendant received the power of delegation of notarial deeds from the Plaintiff and C so that the Defendant may prepare a notarial deed for a loan for consumption as the agent of the Plaintiff and C.
(3) As the Plaintiff and C were unable to repay the above loan by September 5, 2006, the Defendant, on September 22, 2006, drawn up a notarial deed in which a notary public stated in No. 4011 the certificate of Jeonju Joint Law Office (hereinafter “notarial deed of 4011”) the declaration of intent to recognize compulsory execution in the event of nonperformance (hereinafter “notarial deed”).
B. A notary public drafted a notarial deed of monetary loan for consumption (1) on August 30, 2006, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 5,000,000 from the Defendant on August 30, 2006 at the due date for payment and interest rate of 66% per annum.
(2) After that, on February 20, 2007, the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed with a notary public No. 545 as to the above borrowed money to the Defendant on which the declaration of intent to recognize compulsory execution in the event of default was entered (hereinafter referred to as notarial deed No. 545 in 2007).
C. On the other hand, C paid KRW 4,250,00 to the Defendant on April 8, 2005.
The Plaintiff, as indicated in the following table, remitted money to the Defendant’s bank account and repaid the debt.
In the trial of the party, the defendant is against the truth that the confession made in the trial of the first instance that "the plaintiff received 2,000,000 won from the plaintiff on October 5, 2006 and appropriated it to the principal," and made a mistake.