beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff No. 376, August 29, 2014, No. 2014.
Reasons
1. The fact that the Defendant, on August 29, 2014, lent KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff at an annual interest rate of 60% (hereinafter “the instant loan for consumption”) was issued by the Plaintiff as KRW 60,00,000 from the Plaintiff on the same day, issue date, August 29, 2014, and September 30, 2014, and notarized by a notary public as the deed No. 376 of 2014 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) by a law firm, does not conflict between the parties.
2. The parties' assertion
A. According to the Interest Limitation Act applied at the time of entering into the loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant is not a credit service provider, and the highest overdue interest rate applicable to the loan agreement of this case is 25% per annum.
In calculating the annual interest rate of 25%, the plaintiff has already repaid to the defendant all obligations under the loan agreement of this case, so compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case shall not be permitted.
B. The Defendant was fully repaid the loan under the instant loan for consumption, but the Defendant additionally lent KRW 31,00,000 to the Plaintiff on December 5, 2014, and the said additional loan was not yet repaid, and the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.
3. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 17, the Plaintiff is recognized to have paid the Defendant a total of KRW 85,500,000 over 17 times from September 3, 2014 to May 29, 2015, and fully repaid the obligation under the loan agreement of this case (the Defendant is a person who has been fully repaid the loan under the loan agreement of this case). Accordingly, inasmuch as the obligation under the notarial deed of this case was fully repaid, compulsory execution based thereon should be denied.
Meanwhile, the Defendant alleged that it is impossible to comply with the Plaintiff’s claim because the Defendant did not lend additional money to the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant lent additional KRW 31,00,000 to the Plaintiff on December 5, 2014.