logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2015.06.19 2014가합6311
청구이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 30, 2012, and April 1, 2013, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C drafted a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement with the Plaintiff on October 30, 2012 (No. 1164, Oct. 30, 2012; hereinafter “No. 1164, Oct. 30, 2012”); (ii) on April 1, 2013, the Defendant lent KRW 36 million to the Plaintiff on the same day, and C drafted a notarial deed with the content that the Defendant lends KRW 6 million to the Plaintiff on October 30, 2013 (No. 2013, No. 366, No. 2013, Apr. 1, 2013; hereinafter “No. 366, No. 2013, Apr. 1, 2013”).

B. On October 16, 2013, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C’s writing of the authentic deed and C, on October 16, 2013, issued, on October 16, 2013, promissory notes, the face value of which is KRW 130 million, and the due date of which is October 31, 2013, and the Plaintiff, the Defendant (C’s agent), and C, written a authentic deed of promissory notes (Law Firm Multi-Daca, No. 1215, 2013; hereinafter “instant authentic deed”) containing the purport that the said promissory notes will be immediately subject to compulsory execution.

C. The Plaintiff’s repayment and the Defendant’s compulsory execution were paid to the Defendant a sum of KRW 80 million from May 20, 2014 to May 26, 2014. However, on June 23, 2014, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction against the Plaintiff’s real estate in Daejeon District Court’s official residence support on the basis of the instant notarial deed, and the said court rendered a decision to commence a compulsory auction against the real estate auction (D) on June 24, 2014.

【Ground of Recognition】 without any dispute, Gap’s No. 1 No. 1 No. 1, and the plaintiff asserted that C had voluntarily written the plaintiff’s signature on a promissory note out of the above notarial deed, but according to the witness C’s testimony, the plaintiff’s signature on the said promissory note at his/her own will is not accepted.

The Plaintiff.

arrow