(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.12 2016가단5212091

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.12 2016가단5212091

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 27, 2011, the Plaintiff borrowed 20 million won from the Defendants at an interest rate of 2% per month, 20 million won per due date, 20 million won per due date on June 11, 2016. On the same day, the Plaintiff issued and delivered a promissory note stating the payee B, the face value of 20 million won per due date, 1 head of a promissory note with payment at sight, the payee C, the Defendant C, the face value of 20 million won per due date, 20 million won per each (the issuer’s name was directly stated in the issuer’s name) and a receipt stating the borrower’s name and the receipt stating that the Defendants received the full amount of money in cash from the Defendants.

B. On September 8, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) entrusted the Defendants with the authority to prepare a notarial deed on a promissory note as to guarantee the return of the above borrowed amount; (b) the Defendants, on behalf of the Plaintiff, as the issuer, issued a notarial deed with the issuance and signature and seal of each of the said promissory notes on behalf of the Plaintiff; and (c) delayed the payment of the amount of each of the said notes to the holders of each of the said notes, the Plaintiff requested the Defendants to prepare a notarial deed with the intent to recognize and recognize that there is no objection even if the said notes are immediately enforced; and (d)

C. On February 23, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) on June 27, 2011, stated that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 20 million from the Defendants at the interest rate of 24% per annum on the printed paper; (b) affixed a seal imprint and a seal imprint; (c) the Plaintiff directly stated that the Plaintiff received the full amount of the borrowed money in cash from the Defendants; and (d) stated that the Plaintiff would not object to the Plaintiff’s assertion of the existing notarized documents while issuing the same date with the seal imprint and a seal imprint affixed thereto.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The Parties.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2015.07.17 2014가합1509

-의정부지방법원 2016.09.06 2015가단108086

-부산지방법원 2016.04.07 2015가단77232

-인천지방법원 2019.08.14 2019가단217727

-인천지방법원 2020.01.09 2019가합50938