beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s notary public C with the Plaintiff on February 3, 2015, signed on February 3, 2015, and entered into a monetary loan agreement, No. 179.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 3, 2015, upon the commission of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, a credit service provider, a notary public: (a) on February 3, 2015, the Defendant lent KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff on March 3, 2015, with interest rate of KRW 34.9%; and (b) on February 3, 2015, the Plaintiff drafted a notarial deed under a money loan agreement with the purport that the Plaintiff would have no objection even if he/she was immediately subject to compulsory execution (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).
B. On May 26, 2015, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order (U.S. District Court Decision 2015TTTTN 2015TN 6886) on the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of KRW 45,369, a sum of KRW 20,45,369, and KRW 20,369, calculated at the rate of 34.9% per annum from March 4, 2015 to May 20, 2015.
C. The Defendant seized the Plaintiff’s benefit according to the above order of seizure and collection, and collected KRW 12,066,886, totaling 19 times from July 13, 2015 to December 30, 2016.
[Judgment of the court below] 2-5 of the evidence of evidence
2. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The gist of the assertion is to borrow KRW 2 million from the Defendant, who is the credit service provider, and only receive KRW 1,350,000,000 from the Defendant, who deducts the fees, interest, and notarial fees.
At the time of the above lending, the Defendant presented the amount of the loan as KRW 20 million on the condition that it shall be notarized, and the living expenses, etc. have not been able to accept it, and prepares a fake contract and receipt and received it falsely.
Thus, the defendant is deemed to have collected the loan from the plaintiff in excess of the principal and interest of the loan, so it is not permitted to enforce compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case
B. Determination of whether the Defendant lent KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff is stated in the health belt, evidence Nos. 5, evidence Nos. 1, evidence Nos. 1, and evidence Nos. 3-1 and 3, respectively, and the amount of the loan at the time of the above lending is two million won.