beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is a notarial deed of Promissory Notes No. 137, 2014.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 13, 2014, the Plaintiff issued and delivered to the Defendant a promissory note with a face value of KRW 255,000,000, and the due date, November 14, 2014. On the same day, the Plaintiff prepared and issued a notarial deed stating the purport that the said promissory note accepts compulsory execution based on the said promissory note (hereinafter referred to as “instant promissory note” and the said notarial deed “instant notarial deed”).
B. On December 12, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 225,00,000 to the account (Account Number: B) in the name of the Defendant.
C. On May 14, 2015, the Defendant obtained the execution clause based on the original copy of the instant authentic deed, and received the attachment and collection order as the Seoul Central District Court 2015TTT1613, where the Plaintiff is the debtor.
[Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 3 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, in view of the Plaintiff’s repayment of KRW 255,00,000 from the date of the payment of the Promissory Notes, which was about one month prior to the date of the payment of the Promissory Notes, on December 12, 2014, but the delayed period of the payment is less than one month and the Defendant did not raise any objection against the delayed payment within a reasonable period, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant implicitly exempted the Plaintiff from the obligation to pay the delayed payment after the due date of the Promissory Notes.
Therefore, since the Plaintiff’s obligation of promissory notes based on the notarial deed of this case against the Defendant has ceased to exist by payment, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case cannot be permitted.
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The main point of the argument is that the Plaintiff bears the Defendant’s obligation to pay KRW 520,00,000 as a whole, and in addition to the Promissory Notes in this case, the Plaintiff prepares a promissory note, the receiver of which is the Defendant’s former representative director, with the face value of KRW 270,000,000.