beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiffs, No. 1742, July 16, 2018, signed by D on July 16, 2018.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 13, 2018, the Defendant paid KRW 30,000,00 to E with the due date set on September 28, 2018 (hereinafter “the instant loan obligation”), and the Plaintiffs jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s debt to E.
B. E and the Plaintiffs: (a) the Defendant on July 16, 2018; (b) the Party as the principal bond holder; and (c) the Plaintiffs, as joint and several guarantors, have made and issued a fair certificate of monetary consumption and loan agreement to the effect that a notary public does not raise any objection even if he/she is immediately subject to compulsory execution (No. 1742, 2018, hereinafter “Fair Deed”).
E on October 5, 2018, around 10:32, around 30,00,000 won deposited one check in the Defendant’s deposit account (CF). On the same day, the Defendant transferred KRW 8,90,000,000 from the above deposit account to E, KRW 15:41, around 8,90,000, and KRW 9,00,000 from around 16:37.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 7 (including numbered evidence)
Each entry of the witness E, the testimony of the witness E, and the purport of the whole pleadings;
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, E paid KRW 30,00,000 to the Defendant on October 5, 2018, and repaid the debt of the instant loan, and accordingly, the obligation of the Plaintiffs was extinguished by repayment. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, compulsory execution based on the instant fair deed against the Defendant against the Plaintiffs ought to be denied.
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. On October 5, 2018, E demanded repayment of KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant, and demanded a return of KRW 20,000,000 among KRW 30,000,000. The Defendant returned KRW 17,90,000,000 calculated by subtracting KRW 2,10,000,000, out of KRW 20,000,00 to E on the date of deposit of KRW 30,000 (= KRW 8,90,000,00).
Therefore, the plaintiffs' guarantee obligation based on the fair deed of this case remains within the scope of KRW 20,000.
2) E shall be October 2019.