Text
1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff (LLC) No. 173, 2012, drafted on June 21, 2012, No. 173.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 21, 2012, the Plaintiff drafted on the same day a notarial deed, such as the text stating the following: (a) 8.5% of the interest rate per annum; (b) 20% of the interest rate per annum (if the repayment of principal or interest is delayed); (c) and (d) the period for repayment as of November 21, 2013; and (b) if the monetary obligation was not performed in the course of borrowing as of November 21, 2013, the Plaintiff’s notarial deed (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) stating the phrase “i.e., recognizing and recognizing that there is no objection even if compulsory execution is conducted.”
B. On February 14, 2014, when the Plaintiff and B were unable to repay money after the due date, the Defendant received a claim of KRW 234,523,99 (including the principal, interest and execution expenses, KRW 82,100) with the title of execution of the notarial deed of this case as the title of execution of the notarial deed of this case, and was subject to the Seoul Central District Court Decision of seizure and collection order (Seoul Central District Court 2014TT 5035, 5036).
C. The Defendant collected KRW 3,964,580 from the Nonghyup Bank account in the name of the Plaintiff on March 12, 2014 according to the above decision.
After that, on March 12, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 278,70,528 as the Seoul Western District Court No. 866 and gold No. 880 in total with the Defendant as the principal deposit and deposited KRW 278,70,528.
[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 6-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. If a debtor pays expenses and interest of one or more obligations, and the person performing the obligation has effected insufficient performance to satisfy the entire obligation, such performance shall be appropriated in the order of the expenses, the interest and the principal.
(Article 479(1) of the Civil Act provides that expenses incurred in compulsory execution shall be borne by the debtor and the debtor shall be preferentially reimbursed by the execution (Article 53(1) of the Civil Execution Act). As such, with respect to executive titles ordering a payment of money, the whole executory power shall not be excluded unless the executory power is reimbursed.
Supreme Court Decision 89Da2356, 89Meu12121 Decided September 26, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 91Da41620 Decided April 10, 1992