beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 1, 2018, the Plaintiff introduced a new E construction work with the Defendant on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant was unable to perform the said construction work any longer due to the original Defendant’s circumstances; (b) on September 14, 2018, the Plaintiff agreed on the construction contract with the Defendant as KRW 108,90,00 (including additional tax) and agreed on the settlement amount up to July 10, 2018 (hereinafter “instant agreement”); and (c) “G is liable for the loan amount at H in the agreement.”
B. On October 2, 2018, the Plaintiff prepared and rendered a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) stating that “The Defendant lends KRW 108,900,000 to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff shall pay the said money by November 15, 2018, but shall lose the benefit of time and repay the entire amount of the debt, and shall pay the delayed principal at the rate of 15% per annum.”
C. On December 4, 2018, the Plaintiff failed to repay the debt agreed upon by the due date under the instant notarial deed, and on December 4, 2018, paid KRW 100,652,00 out of the debt under the instant notarial deed to the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion in the instant agreement is that the Defendant failed to repay the borrowed money from G in accordance with the terms and conditions of the special agreement, and that the Plaintiff repaid KRW 10 million to G. As such, the Plaintiff has a claim for reimbursement equivalent to the above amount against the Defendant.
If this set-off is made against the Defendant’s claim on the notarial deed of this case, the Plaintiff’s obligation on the notarial deed of this case against the Defendant is extinguished. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case should be denied.
B. According to the facts of recognition as seen earlier, the Plaintiff.