beta
Text
1. The defendant's certificate of notary public C office against the plaintiff is based on an executory exemplification of No. 304 of 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 17, 2017, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 20,000,000 from the Defendant, and paid KRW 2,000,000 to the Defendant in installments from May 17, 2017 to the 17th day of each month, respectively. If delay occurs, the Plaintiff agreed to lose the benefit of time and pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum for the remainder of the amount. The Plaintiff notarized by the notary public C’s office’s certificate as 304, 2017.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant notarial deed”). (b)
From June 19, 2017 to February 28, 2019, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant a total of KRW 20,000,000 as stated in the calculation date of the attached appropriation amount and the amount of repayment.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings
2. On the other hand, the Plaintiff promised the Defendant to repay 20,000,000 won in 10 installments at no interest rate, and thereafter, understood that the Defendant would repay in 20 installments thereafter, and accordingly, the Defendant would have paid 20,000 won in 20 installments. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution based on the instant authentic deed should be denied.
The plaintiff borrowed 20,000,000 won to the defendant and repaid 20,000,000 won each month in 10 installments each month, and if delayed, the plaintiff agreed to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum for the unpaid amount. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
The plaintiff did not know the existence of the notarial deed of this case itself and therefore did not know the existence of such an agreement for delay damages. However, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the notarial deed of this case was notarized by the defendant representative director D on behalf of the plaintiff, and the notary public confirmed the power of representation by the power attached to the certificate of the plaintiff's personal seal impression, so the authenticity is presumed to have been established, and the fact that the notarial deed of this case is invalid because it was not prepared by legitimate procedure is not proved by the plaintiff