beta
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.10.26 2014가합106647

추심금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Basic Facts

On December 27, 2013, the seizure and collection order C issued to the Plaintiff a promissory note of KRW 350,000 at par value, and accordingly, on December 27, 2013 with the commission of the Plaintiff and C, a notary public drafted a promissory deed stating that there is no objection even if a notary public is subject to compulsory execution when he delays the payment of the said promissory note to the Plaintiff from Daejeon General Law Firm to the Plaintiff under Article 3002 of the certificate of 2013.

C From December 200 to D, who had been employed as the Defendant’s act of acting as the president, requested D to prepare a notarial deed on money consumption loan contract with respect to the claim for construction payment concerning the above-mentioned building (hereinafter “instant building”) on the land (hereinafter “instant building”) in the Gu-si, Si-si, E-si, and F 810 square meters and four lots (hereinafter “instant land”). Accordingly, on March 21, 2012 at D and C’s commission from D and C, a notary public borrowed KRW 6.45 million from C on March 21, 2012 from C to C on March 21, 2012 (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”). The period of repayment was 30% per annum.”

The Plaintiff, on June 19, 2014, with the title of execution of the promissory note No. 2014TT 3555, the Jeonju District Court Branch No. 2014 TaT 3555, the Plaintiff’s order of seizure and collection (hereinafter “the collection order of this case”) as to KRW 350,036,950 among the loans extended pursuant to the instant notarial deed against the Defendant in the instant case against C.

The collection order of this case was served on the third debtor on June 24, 2014.

The defendant's objection suit filed a lawsuit against C in this Court No. 2014Gahap106299 against this Court. The defendant asserts that C in this case's monetary loan contract of this case on the Notarial Deed is revoked because it was caused by deceptive act of C or mistake of the defendant's representative. In addition, D has the power of representation for the purpose of seeking C's interest.