logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.12.17 2014가단29895
청구이의등
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 30, 2013, Plaintiff A, a de facto manager of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) agreed to pay KRW 70 million to the Defendant in relation to C’s default as compensation for damages (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

B. On May 23, 2013, Plaintiff A, along with the Defendant, concurrently held the status of the agent of Plaintiff Espethyl Co., Ltd., paid to the Defendant KRW 70 million to the Defendant on the ground that notary public appointed the Defendant as the obligee and the obligor in the Yellow Sea as the obligee and the obligor, and the Plaintiffs paid KRW 10 million among them. Of them, KRW 10 million to the Defendant on May 30, 2013, and KRW 10 million among them is the same year.

6.15.15. Of them, 10 million won for the same year;

6. Each payment shall be made in 30.30, and the remaining 40 million won shall be paid in 20,000 won each time from July 25, 2013 to December 25, 2013. In the event that the above loan obligation is not repaid, a notarial deed of a monetary loan contract (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) No. 608 of 2013 was drawn up with the content of accepting compulsory execution.

C. On April 29, 2014, the Defendant issued an execution clause to the instant notarial deed and received a collection order as the Daegu District Court Branch No. 2014 Other Bonds 911, supra.

[Reasons for Recognition] : Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 9, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiffs issued two cases of authentic notes in the name of Eul-ethyl Co., Ltd., which were false promissory notes in the name of Eul-ethyl Co., Ltd., and Lee ethyl Co., Ltd, based on the said notarial deed, pursuant to the Daegu District Court Decision 2013No247, the said notarial deed, the movable property auction procedure for machinery, etc. (hereinafter “movable Auction Procedure”).

Although the plaintiffs requested the defendant to withdraw the auction procedure of movable property, the defendant threatened the defendant not to suspend the auction unless the plaintiffs pay KRW 70 million.

arrow