beta
Text
1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is a notarial deed with the executive force of 2015 No. 664 of 2015.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff's assertion is to seek non-performance of compulsory execution based on a notarial deed for the following reasons.
(1) On May 25, 2012, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 100 million from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan”). On August 24, 2015, at the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff drafted a notarial deed with executory power under subparagraph 664 of Article 2015 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the content of “the loan amount of KRW 100 million on the following day: May 25, 2012; KRW 100 million on the due date; KRW 20% on October 25, 2015; and KRW 20% on a year after the due date.”
(2) However, on August 27, 2014, the Plaintiff repaid the total of KRW 82,700,000,000,000,000 on August 28, 2014, KRW 9.8 million on August 28, 2014, and KRW 82,70,000 on October 28, 2015 (= KRW 9.8 million on KRW 2.9 million).
(3) Meanwhile, from June 2014 to August 2015, the Plaintiff served as an employee in the clothing store operated by the Defendant, and only received 2.8 million won under the monthly salary for 15 months. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 17.2 million won (=18 million won per month = 1.2 million won per month x 15 months of retirement pay) unpaid to the Plaintiff.
(4) If the Plaintiff’s wage claim against the Defendant and the Defendant’s remaining loan claim against the Plaintiff against the Plaintiff are set off on an equal amount, the instant loan was fully repaid, and thus, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case shall not be permitted.
B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant did not receive KRW 30 million out of the loans of this case for the following reasons, and therefore, he cannot accept the plaintiff's request.
(1) Around October 2012, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff as the purchase fund for apartments was insufficient.
(2) On May 2014, the Plaintiff had operated a clothing store and lent KRW 100 million again. Around the period of the supply of clothing worth KRW 170 million from Japan. During that period, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 50 million with the settlement amount.