beta
Text
1. Certificate No. 6251 drawn up by the Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff on October 26, 2011, No. 6251 of the Joint Law Office.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 25, 201, the Plaintiff engaged in landscaping business, who borrowed KRW 90 million from the Defendant through D, which was the Plaintiff’s wife as of October 25, 201, and upon the Defendant’s request, prepared and executed a notarial deed of monetary loan for movable property transfer and security as stated in paragraph (1) of this Article, stating the Defendant’s loan amounting to KRW 190 million, via D.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant notarial deed”). (b)
The Defendant, a representative of the Plaintiff and E, has been engaged in the transaction of lending money and receiving repayment from the Plaintiff and F as the debtor, and the Plaintiff and F have been prepared with the loan certificates, etc. with the Plaintiff as the debtor, or the Plaintiff and F have been drawn up with the joint guarantor. From around 2007 to 2016, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 8,583,952,349 in total over several occasions from around 2007 to around 2015 and repaid KRW 6,484,73,470 in total from around 207 to around 2015.
[Defendant's assertion that there still exists the Plaintiff's unpaid loan obligation based on the total sum of the Defendant's loans, and the Plaintiff's repayment amount, in the preparatory documents dated November 12, 2019, which are recognized by the Gwangju High Court (Seoul High Court) 2018Na12143. This can be deemed to have been recognized as the Defendant's loan and the Plaintiff's repayment as the premise for the above calculation. [The ground for recognition]] There is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 16 evidence, Eul's 1 through 16 evidence (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion stated that the Plaintiff’s debt is KRW 1.9 million, but the Plaintiff’s debt is additionally stated KRW 100 million without any authority, and the amount actually borrowed by the Plaintiff is KRW 90 million, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 90,60,000 to the Defendant. As such, the obligation based on the instant notarial deed was fully repaid and extinguished.
The plaintiff's objection against the defendant.