(영문) 대구지방법원상주지원 2016.09.07 2015가단8680

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원상주지원 2016.09.07 2015가단8680

청구이의

Text

1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is based on the notarial deed No. 1196, 2014, 2014.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a person who operates both the name of the Plaintiff C, and the Defendant is a feed supplier company, a non-party corporation Karoglassa Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Karo”)

2) The Plaintiff’s husband is the E, and the Defendant’s denial is F, and both the Plaintiff and the Defendant make a mutual transaction, and both the Plaintiff and the Defendant mixed and used the account in the name of the husband.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant supplied feed from the carway, and the Plaintiff paid the feed directly to the carway. However, at the time, the Plaintiff made a monetary transaction in the way that the Defendant, who operates the carway D agency, made the Defendant first deposit the feed in the carway, and thereafter, paid the amount corresponding to the money to the Defendant. (2) On October 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant need to settle the payment at the time of termination of the monetary transaction relationship as above.

3) Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to make a later accurate settlement on October 20, 2014, and first, a notary public with the content that the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant KRW 150 million, the due date for payment is February 28, 2015, and the object transferred for security is a notarial deed No. 1196, the 2014, the 2014, the 2014, the notarial deed (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

C. The Defendant’s attachment of pigs owned by the Plaintiff on May 12, 2015, attached KRW 90,887,019 as the claim based on the instant notarial deed, and seized KRW 130,00,00,000,000 owned by the Plaintiff. [The grounds for recognition are without dispute, and the purport of the entire pleadings are as follows: (a) the Defendant’s attachment of pigs owned by the Plaintiff was based on the instant notarial deed.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff settled a financial transaction with the Defendant after the preparation of the authentic deed of this case and repaid all obligations to the Defendant.

Accordingly, the plaintiff is not allowed to enforce compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원상주지원 2016.08.18 2015가합2306

-대구지방법원김천지원 2014.08.14 2013가단13425

-인천지방법원 2019.09.20 2019가단8978

-수원지방법원 2015.06.18 2014가단539320

-인천지방법원 2017.08.10 2016가단242746