beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff has a law firm executory power, No. 636 of the 2014 Certificate.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) appointed the Plaintiff as the obligor and the Defendant as the obligee; and (b) drafted a notarized deed of debt repayment contract (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the content that “the obligor shall assume the obligation from the obligee on September 30, 2014, KRW 21.5 million per annum, delay damages, and KRW 25% per annum, and due date, September 30, 2015; and (c) subscribed to repay the obligation pursuant to the provisions of this contract; and (d) the obligee agreed to accept the obligation; and (e) the obligor, if the obligor fails to perform the obligation under this contract, was immediately notified by the obligee that there is no objection even if he/she is subject to compulsory execution from the obligee.” (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).
B. On July 27, 2018, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction on a motor vehicle owned by the Plaintiff to Busan District Court Dong Branch E of the Dong branch of the Busan District Court on the same day, but the compulsory auction was decided by the above court on the same day, but the Plaintiff applied for a stay of compulsory execution as Busan District Court Branch Branch No. 2018Kadan10050, and received the stay of execution on September 6, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. On September 3, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Defendant did not lend KRW 21.5 million to the Plaintiff; and (b) the said money was paid out by the Defendant to the Plaintiff for gambling and for betting on behalf of the Plaintiff on September 3, 2014; and (c) the said money was collected by having the Plaintiff carry out the betting on behalf of the Plaintiff, adding total of KRW 12,00,000 to KRW 7,000,000,000 to the said money, but in fact, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to repay KRW 21,50,000,000 to the Defendant on the ground that the money, which is punished for gambling, falls short of the Defendant’s anticipated revenues; and (d) the said money was paid out by the Plaintiff for gambling money or the proceeds of gambling.