beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s money against the Plaintiff and the law firm’s interest rate on March 9, 201, No. 84 of the 2011.
Reasons
1. In fact C is the Plaintiff’s mother.
C borrowed KRW 130,00,000 from the Defendant to use for his own business fund, on March 9, 2011, upon commissioning him and the Plaintiff to prepare the No. 84 of the Monetary Loan Agreement No. 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the “No. 84”) on which he and the Plaintiff were the debtor, the No. 84 of the No. 2011 document was prepared.
However, at the time, the Plaintiff was born D and was a minor, and C commissioned the preparation of the Notarial Deed as a legal representative of the Plaintiff, one of the debtors and another debtor. Of the Notarial Deed, there was no fact that the special representative was appointed and participated in the part of the Plaintiff’s name.
[Ground of recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the numbers of documentary evidence Nos. 1 to 3), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. As of March 9, 201, the Notarial Deed of this case, written on the ground of the claim, came to age 20 and became adult.
As seen in Paragraph 1, C’s act of borrowing KRW 130,00,000 to the Defendant and commissioning himself and the Plaintiff to prepare the Notarial Deed as a joint obligor for the above loan is an act in conflict with the interests between C and the Plaintiff who is a legal representative, and thus requires the involvement of the special representative appointed by the court under Article 921(1) of the Civil Act.
In addition, the act of conflict between the person with parental authority and the minor without the involvement of the special representative for the minor constitutes an act of conflicting interest between the person with parental authority and the minor is null and void.
Therefore, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case against the defendant against the plaintiff is not permissible as it is illegal, and it is not allowed as to the defendant's obligations under the notarial deed of this case against the plaintiff.
On the other hand, the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant over the existence of the obligation under the notarial deed of this case.