The validity of an agreement between the issuer and the addressee to use the notarial deed after the termination of the claim for a promissory note on the notarial deed (negative)

A notarial deed of a promissory note refers to a notarial deed in which the issuer of a promissory note is the issuer of the promissory note, and if the payment of the promissory note is delayed, a notarial deed shall be prepared to the effect that no objection is raised even if it is immediately enforced against the holder of the note, and it shall be confirmed and prepared by a notary public. Such notarial deed constitutes a title of debt, which forms the basis of compulsory execution, and thus, it becomes the requisite to indicate a specific claim aiming at the payment of a certain amount or the payment of a certain amount of substitute or securities, and thus, the utility of the notarial deed resulting from the alteration

Article 519 subparag. 4 of the Civil Procedure Act

Kim Tae-tae

Kim Young-do

Seoul District Court Decision 97Da131299 delivered on April 18, 1997

1. Revocation of the original judgment;

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 6,00,000 won with 25% interest per annum from March 28, 1997 to the date of full payment.

3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

Paragraph 2 of this Article.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the whole purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of Gap evidence 1 (the same as Eul evidence 1), Eul evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 4-6, and evidence 8-13, and there is no counter-proof.

A. On November 4, 1995, the non-party 1 (the judgment of divorce on November 24, 1997) who was the plaintiff's wife issued a promissory note with a face value of KRW 7,500,000 per month for interest from the defendant, and with a face value of KRW 7,500,000 for the plaintiff and the defendant as the issuer as a security, and with a face value of KRW 7,50,000 for the plaintiff and the defendant as the plaintiff and the plaintiff as the issuer, the payment date, blank, place of payment, place of payment, and place of payment of the promissory note with Sungnam-si as each of the place of issuance (hereinafter the promissorysory note in this case) for delayed payment of the said promissorysory notes to the Japanese General Law Firm, a notary public entrusted the preparation of a notarial deed to the effect that there is no objection even if being subject to compulsory execution.

B. On October 18, 1996, the Defendant received a decision on the seizure and assignment order of claim amounting to KRW 6,00,000 out of the lease deposit claim amounting to KRW 37 of the 37th floor among the 1001 building, Seongbuk-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City bank 2 Dong-dong 1001, which the Plaintiff had against the above Chonam-gu. The above decision was served on the third obligor. Around that time, the above decision was served on the third obligor.

C. Meanwhile, on the basis of the above assignment order, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the above assistant in the above court on June 1, 1997, and sentenced that the above assistant was paid an amount of KRW 6,000,000 and an amount of KRW 25% per annum from March 16, 1997 to the date of full payment, and received KRW 6,540,000 from the above assistant in accordance with the above assignment order on June 27, 1997, as well as damages for delay and litigation costs.

2. The parties' assertion

First, the plaintiff asserted that the above non-party 1 paid the whole amount of promissory notes on the notarial deed of this case to the defendant, even though the execution bond of this case was extinguished, the defendant obtained an assignment order and the decision of the whole amount based on the assignment order as seen earlier, and the non-party 1 who bears the obligation to refund the lease deposit to the plaintiff based on the above judgment, and received the above amount of 6,000,000 won from March 16, 1997 to pay damages for delayed payment from the above bonds of this case, and made unjust enrichment without any legal ground. The defendant claimed that the above amount of 7,50,000 won and interest interest thereon loaned to the non-party 1 upon the issuance of the notarial deed of this case were repaid on December 14, 195 from the above non-party 1, but thereafter, the above non-party 1 had been repaid on March 15, 199 to the above non-party 1, 7500,000 won interest and 34.

3. Determination

Therefore, as to the validity of an agreement between the issuer and the addressee to use a notarial deed after the termination of the claim on a promissory note, the notarial deed of a promissory note is the issuer of a promissory note. If the issuer of a promissory note is the holder of the issuance and seal of a promissory note, and the holder of the note delays the payment of the note, the notarial deed is an execution deed which is a document to commission the issuer of a promissory note to the effect that no objection is raised even if it is immediately subject to compulsory execution and it is confirmed and prepared by a notary public. Such an execution deed constitutes a title of debt, which is the basis of compulsory execution, and thus, it is a requirement to indicate a specific claim aimed at paying a certain amount of money or a certain amount of substitute or securities, and accordingly, the usefulness of the execution deed that

However, the promissory note of this case is issued in the name of the above non-party 1 and the plaintiff as a collateral against the loan from the defendant, and the above non-party 1 also extinguished the defendant's obligation to pay the principal and interest of the loan to the defendant. Even if the non-party 1 again borrowed money from the defendant and agreed that the above non-party 1 would use the promissory note of this case as a collateral against it, it cannot be deemed that the effect of the authentication confirming the intention of recognition and acceptance that the above non-party 1 would not raise an objection even if the above non-party 1 would be subject to a compulsory execution immediately when he delays the payment of the new promissory note, and therefore, the utilization agreement of the authentic deed of a promissorysory deed is null and void (in addition, in the case of the above non-party 1 and the defendant, the above non-party 1 and the plaintiff did not have any evidence that the plaintiff agreed to do so).

Therefore, after the execution claim is extinguished, the defendant received an order for the entire amount of KRW 6,00,00 among the lease deposit claims against the non-party 1 pursuant to the notarial deed of this case, and received it. Thus, the defendant gains profit equivalent to the amount received without any legal ground and suffered damage to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of KRW 6,00,000 which is 25% per annum from March 28, 1997 to the full payment date under the Special Act on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is obvious that the copy of the complaint of this case is delivered to the defendant as requested by the plaintiff. (The date on which the defendant received the above amount shall be June 27, 1997 or from March 16 to 25, 198). Thus, the defendant shall return damages for delay to the plaintiff from March 16, 199 to the late payment damages at the rate of KRW 30,000,000.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and since the original judgment with different conclusions is unfair, it shall be revoked, and it shall be decided as per Disposition by ordering the payment of the above amount.

Judges Park Il-young (Presiding Judge)