beta
Text
1. It is based on the original copy of the notarial deed No. 452, 2017 against the Defendant’s Plaintiffs.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
Plaintiff
A, on July 28, 2017, at the office of notary public D, made and issued to the Defendant a notarial deed of money consumption loan contract (hereinafter referred to as “notarial deed of this case”) by No. 452, 2017.
The content was that: (a) Plaintiff A borrowed KRW 60 million from the Defendant on May 20, 2016; (b) KRW 500,000 until July 28, 2017; (c) KRW 10,000 until July 31, 2017; (d) KRW 10,000 until August 20, 2017; and (e) KRW 10,000 until September 20, 2017; and (e) KRW 25,00,000 until October 20, 2017; and (e) paid delay damages calculated at the rate of 15 percent per annum.
In addition, the plaintiff B guaranteed the above debt of the plaintiff A.
(Reasons for recognition) Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, and purport of the whole pleadings.
The Plaintiffs asserted by the parties, from May 31, 2016 to January 5, 2017, Plaintiff A borrowed a total of KRW 151,90,000 from the Defendant, and repaid a total of KRW 172,686,344 from June 3, 2016 to October 12, 2017.
Plaintiff
A The sum of interest and principal calculated according to 25% per annum, the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, is KRW 157,270,465, and the Plaintiff A fully repaid the Defendant’s debt.
Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case should not be permitted.
The Plaintiff and the Defendant settled the loan and the repayment amount prior to the preparation of the notarial deed of this case, and confirmed that the loan principal remaining at the time of the preparation of the said notarial deed is KRW 60,000,000, and prepared the notarial deed based thereon.
Therefore, the plaintiff's argument is unreasonable.
Judgment
Considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence and the statement of No. 2 as well as the purport of the entire pleadings prior to the time of the preparation of the instant authentic deed, the Plaintiff and the Defendant determined the amount of loan on the authentic deed by reflecting all the Plaintiff’s repayment made up by the time of the preparation of the instant authentic deed.
① Plaintiff A on July 28, 2017