beta
Text
1. The Defendants and D respectively share KRW 22,00,000,000, concluded on October 26, 2012 and KRW 198,00,000, which was concluded on December 3, 2012.
Reasons
1. The existence and scope of the preserved claim;
A. The facts of recognition 1) D entered into a construction contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on January 31, 2008, which was represented by E, with the purport that D will build 8 households of multi-household on the land other than the F of Gwangju City owned by E and as a result, it would be subject to the transfer of the ownership of 6 households of multi-household housing. 2) D was the Plaintiff, the notary public on February 19, 2008, with the 86 issuer of 2008 Certificate No. 86 of the Seongbuk-nam General Law Office of Law, the 2008 Certificate No. 2008, No. 475, Jan. 31, 2008; the date of issuance; the notarial deed on July 31, 2008; the notarial deed on March 4, 2009 No. 9475, Mar. 4, 2009; the date of payment of each of the notarial instruments No. 20094,37.29.
3) Meanwhile, around June 3, 2009, D repaid to the Plaintiff KRW 19,20,000 among the obligations arising from the notarial deed of the said promissory note. On April 24, 2014, the Plaintiff received KRW 19,577,701 out of the claims based on the notarial deed of the said promissory note in the real estate compulsory auction procedure (this court G) from the Plaintiff on April 24, 2014. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, Party A 1 through 3, and 5 through 9
B. Determination 1) The Plaintiff has a claim KRW 64,122,299 based on D’s authentic deed of the said Promissory Notes. 2) The Defendants asserted that D’s payment of KRW 64,122,29 based on D’s authentic deed was made on August 21, 2008, KRW 10,3350,000,000 on August 22, 2008, KRW 7050,000 on September 12, 2008, KRW 700,000 on September 22, 2008, KRW 180,000 on April 30, 209, KRW 50,020,000 on May 1, 2009, but it is difficult to find it by only evidence (Evidence 19).
[In light of the above legal principles, the court below's determination that D's claim is dismissed, on June 1, 2012, on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge D's assertion that D's claim objection against the Plaintiff was null and void, or that D's claim was repaid KRW 31 million out of its due debt.