beta
Text
1. A notary public belonging to the Seoul Dong-dong District Prosecutors' Office against the plaintiff was prepared on January 14, 2014 by the defendant's father.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7, and 10 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of witness B, it is recognized that the plaintiff, who operates the main points in the name of "C", borrowed 4 million won from the defendant on January 13, 2014 from the defendant wholesaler of alcoholic beverages, and prepares and pays to the defendant a promissory note No. 1 (hereinafter "notarial deed of this case") as security, the plaintiff paid KRW 50 million on April 30, 2014, KRW 50,000 on February 50, 201, and KRW 3 million on November 6, 2015 to fully repay the above four million to the defendant.
According to the above facts of recognition, inasmuch as a debt under the Notarial Deed of this case is fully repaid, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case shall be denied.
2. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim is unjustifiable since the plaintiff has a claim for the amount of KRW 3,143,700 arising from a transaction of alcoholic beverages between the plaintiff and the plaintiff.
The sole statement of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 alone is insufficient to recognize the existence of the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay to the Defendant for alcoholic beverages of KRW 3,143,700, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay for alcoholic beverages to the Defendant exists, as seen earlier, the obligation indicated in the notarial deed of this case was already extinguished due to repayment.
In addition, it cannot be said that the outstanding amount of monetary claim determined as a separate monetary claim has an executory power of the notarial deed of this case.
Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.