logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 포항지원 2018.08.14 2017가단6656
청구이의
Text

1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is a law firm's 2007 General Law Office No. 487.

Reasons

1. Basic facts B is registered under the name of the Plaintiff living together at the time, and the Defendant borrowed the purchase price of the vehicle from the Defendant, and thereby leaving the vehicle to the Defendant and receiving the transport fee.

Accordingly, as of April 17, 2007 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, a business owner, a notary public, prepared a notarial deed of money loan contract No. 487 of the 2007, No. 487 of the 2007, which was the notarial deed of this case.

The contents of the notarial deed of this case are as follows: “The defendant lent KRW 13,00,000 to the plaintiff on March 22, 2007, and B guarantees the plaintiff’s above loan obligations to the defendant; the plaintiff shall pay KRW 1,00,000 to the defendant over 13 times each month from May 5, 2007 to May 5, 2008; the interest rate is 15% per annum from April 6, 2007 to the due date; and when the plaintiff delays the payment of the above interest and installment, even if there is no other notification or peremptory notice from the defendant, the plaintiff must naturally lose the benefit of the above loan obligation and immediately repay the remainder of the debt amount.”

On the other hand, on December 12, 2017, the Defendant, based on the instant notarial deed to this court C, was forced to commence compulsory auction as to the D Building No. 503, North Korea-si, Pohang-si, the Plaintiff owned.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. First of all, the plaintiff living together with B and B from December 2006 to May 2007, and the plaintiff delivered the plaintiff's seal imprint certificate and the certificate of seal impression to E and E prepared the notarial deed. Thus, the notarial deed of this case is invalid.

In other words, the plaintiff was aware that the plaintiff had been living together with B at the time of the time, and that the transportation fee would be the revenue by leaving B the vehicle.

arrow