(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.10.16 2015가단11256

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) 수원지방법원 2015.10.16 2015가단11256

약속어음금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 22,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from May 26, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. On May 30, 2013, the Defendant: (a) prepared and delivered a notarial deed No. 496 of 2013 (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) to the Plaintiff on May 30, 2013 with respect to a promissory note, the issuer, the face value of which is KRW 67,1 million; (b) the date of issuance May 22, 2013; (c) the date of payment; and (d) May 22, 2014; and (e) the date of payment, if the payment of the said note is delayed on the date of payment, a notary public who recognizes and acknowledges that there is no objection even if he/she is immediately subject to compulsory execution. The Plaintiff and the Defendant settled the settlement that the Defendant paid part of the debt based on the instant notarial deed and agreed to pay KRW 2,20 million, in full view of the purport of evidence and pleadings set forth in subparagraph 1.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 22 million won agreed upon as the amount of unpaid payment, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from May 26, 2015 to the date of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the defendant, as requested by the plaintiff.

2. On the judgment on the defendant's defense, the defendant, based on the notarial deed of this case, collected the defendant's deposit claims, etc. through the Suwon District Court 2015TTTTT No. 2015TTTT4967, and seized the defendant's claims through the above seizure and collection order, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is an abuse of rights. However, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff actually collected the defendant's deposit claims through the seizure and collection order of Suwon District Court 2015TTTT4967, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff actually collected the defendant's deposit claims through the seizure and collection order of the above claims. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2015.07.03 2014가단100418

-부산지방법원 2019.10.23 2019가합44565

-울산지방법원 2020.06.24 2018가단62906

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.11 2015가단58639

-서울서부지방법원 2017.11.22 2016가단29923