beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, No. 1454, 2012, No. 1454.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim
A. On March 21, 2012, the Plaintiff borrowed 12% per annum from the Defendant on March 21, 2012, 2012, the Plaintiff borrowed 12% per annum from the Defendant on March 21, 2012, the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum, interest rate of KRW 22% per annum, and due date of payment on September 21, 2012, and there is no objection even if the Plaintiff is immediately subject to compulsory execution (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).
(2) On August 28, 2013, the Defendant was issued a ruling to commence a compulsory auction of real estate owned by the Plaintiff on the basis of the instant notarial deed.
B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant did not lend KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff on March 21, 2012, as stated in the instant notarial deed, that the judgment on the cause of the claim was against the Plaintiff.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case should not be permitted.
C. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant newly constructed a telecom on the ground of Kim Jong-si. During the process of the new construction of the above telecom, the Defendant completed the completion inspection by performing all business related to the new construction of the telecom, such as various authorizations and permissions, and thereby, D, the representative director of the Plaintiff, recognized the Defendant’s above efforts and paid KRW 100 million to the Defendant, and completed the notarial deed of this case. Thus, the notarial deed of this case is made out as a quasi-loan agreement with regard
However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 1 were to pay KRW 100,000 by recognizing the defendant's efforts during the new construction of the telecom as alleged by the defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
In addition, according to the purport of the evidence No. 1 and the whole argument, the evidence No. 1 are examined.