logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2017.10.19 2017가단4411
청구이의
Text

1. Certificates No. 753, 2015, drawn up by the Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff on October 22, 2015.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 22, 2015, the Plaintiff drafted a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) stating that “A notary public shall grant a loan of KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff, on October 22, 2015, up to April 22, 2016, until the due date set at 24% per annum from November 22, 2015, by a notary public from the Defendant to the Plaintiff” (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

B. On January 13, 2016, the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement with the Defendant stating that “The Defendant lent KRW 17,000,000 to the Plaintiff on January 13, 2016, and the Plaintiff shall repay KRW 200,000 in installments on the 13th day of each month during the period from February 13, 2016 to 85 months” (hereinafter “notarial deed 2”).

C. Since then, the Plaintiff intended to pay the principal and interest and enforcement expenses, etc. up to May 15, 2017 with respect to the Notarial Deed No. 1 of this case to the Defendant, but the Defendant was the principal of the deposited money on May 15, 2017 on the ground that the Defendant refused to receive it, and deposited KRW 11,97,484 with the Defendant as the deposited money in this Court No. 902 in 2017, May 15, 2017, and the Defendant received it.

On the other hand, after the preparation of the Notarial Deed 2, the Defendant stated to the Plaintiff that “The Notarial Deed of this case shall be repaid by C and shall be repaid by C.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. We examine the facts that the Defendant received deposit money in relation to the Notarial Deed No. 1 and delivered it to the Plaintiff by stating that the Defendant did not have the Plaintiff’s obligation to repay in relation to the Notarial Deed No. 2, as seen earlier. Thus, the Plaintiff’s obligation under the No. 1 and No. 2 notarial Deed No. 1 and No. 2 became extinct due to repayment or exemption.

Therefore, the case 1, 2.2 is not subject to special circumstances.

arrow