1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 9, 2016, the Plaintiff decided to borrow KRW 2 million from the Defendant, and issued to the Defendant a promissory note with “the amount of KRW 2 million in face value, Incheon Metropolitan City, the place of issue, and the place of payment, Incheon Metropolitan City, the date of issue, and February 9, 2017,” and on the same day, written and issued a notarial deed of promissory notes as stated in paragraph (1) of this Article (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

B. On the same day, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 1,70,000,000 from the Defendant for a loan that deducts a prior interest and KRW 3 million.

C. On January 17, 2017, the Plaintiff repaid to the Defendant KRW 300,000,000 on February 10, 2017, KRW 300,000,000 on March 13, 2017, KRW 300,000 on April 14, 2017, KRW 300,000 on May 20, 2017, and KRW 2 million on September 22, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by adding up the facts acknowledged in paragraph (1) above and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim, a compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case shall not be permitted, since a loan claim, which is the cause of the notarial deed of this case, has all been extinguished by repayment.

Inasmuch as the instant notarial deed does not state interest, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 2 million to the Defendant, thereby repaying all obligations of the instant notarial deed.

B. Under the premise that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to pay interest of KRW 300,000 per month as alleged by the Defendant, the obligation of the instant notarial deed was extinguished due to the following reasons.

1) Notwithstanding any name, such as a deposit, discount, commission, mutual aid, substitute payment, etc., a creditor received in connection with a lending and borrowing of money shall be deemed as interest (Article 4(1) of the Interest Limitation Act, and Article 2(1) of the same Act, where advance deduction was made, the amount of such deduction shall be deemed as the principal that the debtor actually received.