beta
Text
1. Certificates signed by the Plaintiff on May 3, 2007 by Busan Joint Law Office against the Defendant (No. 524).
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 3, 2007, at the commission of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Busan Dong-dong Office lent the Plaintiff, on January 25, 2006, KRW 50 million, to the Plaintiff in installments, from May 15, 2007 to April 25, 2008, with the payment of KRW 50 million. When the Plaintiff fails to perform the above loan obligation, the Busan Dong-dong Office written an authentic deed of money loan agreement under Paragraph (1) of the main text stating that he does not raise any objection even if he is immediately subject to compulsory execution (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).
B. On March 26, 2010, the Defendant made an application against the Plaintiff for entry in the defaulters’ list No. 2009Kao3243, the Busan District Court issued to C on behalf of the Plaintiff, “Case Number: 2009Kao3243, the above case was mutually agreed upon,” and received KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff on the same day, and withdrawn the application for entry in the defaulters’ list on the same day.
[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (the signature next to the defendant's name is recognized as the defendant's penology according to the result of the written reexamination by appraiser D's appraiser D, and the authenticity of the whole document is presumed to have been formed) Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff borrowed only KRW 10 million from the Defendant on March 2, 2006, and KRW 15 million on March 27, 2006, and was unable to repay it, and the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to prepare the instant Notarial Deed and inevitably prepared it. However, the Defendant made an application against the Plaintiff for the entry of a defaulters’s list against the Plaintiff, and agreed that the Plaintiff’s agent C would pay KRW 10 million to the Defendant on March 26, 2010. The Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to the Defendant according to the said agreement, and thus, there was no obligation based on the instant Notarial Deed.