beta
Text
1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff was 2013 No. 425 dated April 18, 2013.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 18, 2013, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant KRW 20,00,000,000 to the Defendant each ten times from January 1, 2014 to October 10 of the same year, and the damages for delay shall be KRW 25,00,000 per annum. The damages for delay shall be 25% per annum. If the payment in installments is delayed at one time, a notary public, who makes the payment in installments, lost the benefit of time and immediately pays the remainder of the debt, set up and implements a notarial deed of a debt repayment contract (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).
B. The Plaintiff paid to the Defendant each amount indicated in the “amount of repayment” column in the “amount of repayment” column in the “amount of repayment” column in the “amount of payment” column in the attached sheet of calculation of the amount of appropriation.
【Ground of recognition】 Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2-5 through 17, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. On February 18, 2013, Plaintiff 1: (a) made an authentic deed on the obligation of KRW 20,000,000 to Defendant; (b) paid KRW 3,50,000,000 each of the above amounts to Defendant on March 5, 2013; (c) paid KRW 1,50,000 on March 5, 2013; and (d) paid KRW 1,50,000 in total on April 26, 2013; and (c) written an authentic deed on the debt repayment contract of KRW 20,00,000,000, including the amount repaid as above, on April 18, 2013; and (d) any debt remaining at the time of the preparation of the authentic deed of this case to the Defendant is KRW 16,50,000,00.
After that, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,00,000 on May 11, 2013 by mistake in the initial date of repayment, and there was an implicit agreement with the Defendant to pay the method of repayment according to the circumstances, notwithstanding the entries in the notarial deed of this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 20,50,000 in total, as stated in the notarial deed of this case, as the sum of KRW 4,50,000,000 that was repaid by the Plaintiff as above, and KRW 16,50,000,000, which was repaid as indicated in the notarial deed of this case, all of the Plaintiff’s obligations based on the notarial deed of this case are repaid.