beta
Text
A notary public belonging to the Incheon District Public Prosecutor's Office against the plaintiffs of the defendant shall prepare D on August 10, 2015 by Law Firm D.
Reasons
1. On August 10, 2015, Plaintiff A and the Defendant entered into a contract with Plaintiff A to cover a machine from the Defendant, and Plaintiff B jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to pay rental fees to Plaintiff A to the Defendant. On the same day, the Plaintiffs paid KRW 85,832,091 to the Defendant by dividing the Plaintiff into August 15, 2018, and then written a notarial deed (Evidence A No. 1; hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) described in the purport of the claim that Plaintiff B stand joint and several sureties. Since then, Plaintiff A and the Defendant exceeded KRW 85,832,091,00 in excess of KRW 10,221,360 (the entry of Plaintiff E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”).
(1) Since a collection suit against E is filed and a full payment is made to the Defendant, including KRW 10,520,00,000, which is the amount under the conciliation protocol that is to be received from E, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case shall be denied.
2. Determination
A. If Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 2, 2, 3, 4, and 5 added the purport of all pleadings, the plaintiff paid KRW 89,701,360 to the defendant from September 15, 2015 to March 25, 2020 as shown in the attached Table, and KRW 85,832,091 as stated in the instant deed is the total amount of sirens that are not included in the value-added tax, and the value-added tax is to be paid separately under the rental contract. The rental fee is to be paid at 15th day of each month. The defendant delayed the rental fee at several times by the plaintiff, and the defendant stated the obligation to pay the rental contract late payment fees at the time of the plaintiff's late payment of the value-added tax in consideration of the transaction parties and late payment fees to be paid by the plaintiff A to the defendant as above, and the defendant finally appropriated the plaintiff's payment of the value-added tax to the defendant.