beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is on the notarial deed No. 382, October 28, 2015, drafted on October 28, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 18, 2015, the Plaintiff borrowed 1.5 million won as interest rate of the Defendant, 25% per annum, and as of June 18, 2015, the due date for repayment was determined and borrowed.
B. On May 18, 2015, an attorney-at-law in charge of notarial services, at the request of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, drafted a notarial deed of debt repayment contract (No. 382, 2015; hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) that recognizes that there is no objection even if he/she fails to pay the above loan, when the Plaintiff fails to do so, at the request of the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, Eul's 1 and 2 (including each number in case of additional evidence), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that, on May 18, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 150,000 to the Defendant a preference fee of KRW 150,000,000, and that the Defendant paid the principal and interest to the Defendant several times until October 6, 2015, the executory power of the instant notarial deed ought to be excluded. On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed is possible, since the principal and interest have not been paid to the Plaintiff
B. As to whether the Plaintiff fully repaid the principal and interest of the instant notarial deed to the Defendant, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement in Evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, and Eul Nos. 2 (including each number), the Plaintiff paid 150,000 won to the Defendant on May 18, 2015, including the payment of 150,000 won to the Defendant on May 6, 2015, and entered the purport thereof in the calendar (Evidence No. 4) two times every month until October 6, 2015. The Defendant borrowed 1,50,000 won from the Plaintiff with the intent and ability of the Plaintiff to repay, and filed a complaint against the Plaintiff in fraud, etc. (Seoul District Court Seo-gu District Court Decision 2016Da17613, Sept. 19, 2016; the prosecutor’s record of the Plaintiff’s call entry, the details of the Plaintiff’s currency entry, and the Defendant’s money entry.