beta
Text
1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff shall execute the deed 27 March 27, 2004, No. 701.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 27, 2004, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 10,000,00 from C, which was put by the Defendant to the Defendant, and on the same day, drawn up a notarized deed of money loan agreement No. 701, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the “notarial deed of this case”) with the content that the said borrowed amount would be repaid in two times each on the same day.
B. After the death of C and the Defendant inherited the above claim as the inheritor. On October 30, 2013, the Defendant, based on the above notarial deed, issued a seizure and collection order as to each of the deposit claims against the Plaintiff’s Dongbcheon Agricultural Cooperatives, the Republic of Korea (Postal Post), and the Industrial Bank of Korea as the District Court of Jungcheon-cheon District on October 30, 2013. On November 22, 2013, issued a seizure and collection order as to the Plaintiff’s lease deposit claims as the District Court of Jung-gu District on November 22, 2013.
C. Meanwhile, around September 20, 2005, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,000,000 out of the above borrowed money to the network C. For this reason, the Plaintiff filed a claim objection suit against the Defendant with the District Court 2014Kadan100146, and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on April 24, 2014 by the above court (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant’s compulsory execution based on a notarial deed with the executory power of No. 701, 2004, which was executed by a notary public against the Plaintiff, from March 28, 2006 to the day of complete payment, the said judgment was finalized as is June 24, 2014.
On September 16, 2014, the Plaintiff deposited the amount of KRW 20% interest of KRW 5,500,000 per annum from March 28, 2006 to September 16, 2014, under the order of the said judgment, “14,821,369, the sum of KRW 14,821,369,” which is the deposit date, from March 28, 2006 to September 16, 2014.
【Ground for recognition” has no dispute, and Gap evidence 1 through 7 respectively.