beta
Text
1. A notary public E belonging to the former District Prosecutors' Office against the defendant's plaintiffs, which was prepared on November 4, 2014, No. 379.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 5, 2014, Plaintiff A borrowed KRW 20,000,00 from the Defendant as the due date for payment on November 4, 2016 and as 25% per annum (hereinafter “the instant loan”). Plaintiff B was a joint guarantor of the instant loan debt with the maximum amount of KRW 28,00,000,00 with the guaranteed liability period fixed on November 4, 2026; Plaintiff B was a joint guarantor of the instant loan debt with the term of the guaranteed liability period fixed on November 4, 2026; and Nonparty E, a notary public of the former State’s District Prosecutors’ Office, affiliated with the former State’s Office, notarized by Act No. 379 on November 4, 2014.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant authentic deed”). B.
Based on the instant notarial deed, on November 19, 2015, the Defendant received 430,500,746,200 won from the auction of corporeal movables (principal principal of KRW 20,000,000, interest5,178,082) in the Jeonju District Court Decision 2015Du2046 on November 19, 2015, and appropriated it to the interest interest.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 6-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The plaintiffs asserted that they paid KRW 6,880,00 in cash to the defendant as shown in the separate sheet No. 1, and paid KRW 8,880,00 as shown in the separate sheet No. 2, and the defendant received KRW 430,50 and KRW 746,200 in the procedure for the auction of corporeal movables owned by the plaintiffs on the basis of the instant notarial deed. Thus, since KRW 16,936,70 ( KRW 6,880,000) out of the loan debt of this case was repaid, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case shall be denied as much as the amount already paid by the plaintiffs.
B. 1) Determination 1) We examine whether Plaintiff A paid KRW 6,880,000 in cash to the Defendant as shown in attached Form 1, and there is no evidence to prove that Plaintiff A paid KRW 6,880,00 in cash to the Defendant. This part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit. 2) Determination as to whether Plaintiff A paid KRW 8,880,00 in cash as shown in attached Table 2 as repayment of the instant loan obligation is written in attached Table 2.