(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.06.09 2015가합35034

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) 서울서부지방법원 2016.06.09 2015가합35034

청구이의

Text

1. Certificate No. 10888, 2010, drawn up by the Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff on September 30, 2013.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 30, 2013, the Defendant entrusted a notary public with the preparation of an authentic deed of a monetary loan agreement for consumption, stating that “The Defendant lent KRW 380 million to the Plaintiff, Sept. 30, 2013, the Plaintiff shall pay the said amount in installments over 32 times from January 31, 2014 to August 31, 2016, the interest rate shall be 10% per annum, and the delay damages shall be 20% per annum, and if the Plaintiff fails to perform his/her monetary obligation under this contract, the Defendant shall immediately be subject to compulsory execution, and on the same day, the notary public prepared a authentic deed of a monetary loan for consumption, No. 1088 (hereinafter “notarial deed”).

B. On September 30, 2013, at the time of commissioning the preparation of the instant authentic deed, the Defendant submitted to the said notarial office a letter of delegation under the name of “C” prior to the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “instant letter of delegation”) that the Plaintiff granted to the Defendant the right to represent the said commission.

C. Meanwhile, around January 5, 2015, the Plaintiff’s name was changed from “C” to “A”.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment as to the plaintiff

A. The plaintiff alleged that it is necessary for the defendant to conduct the business in the name of the plaintiff in the course of joining the defendant on the premise of marriage. The defendant did not lend KRW 380 million to the plaintiff, and even though he did not have granted the right to request the plaintiff to prepare the notarial deed of this case, the plaintiff's certificate of personal seal impression was issued by pretending that he had the plaintiff's seal imprint, etc. at his own discretion by using the above circumstance, and the plaintiff's letter of delegation in the name of the plaintiff was prepared and exercised.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원포항지원 2020.04.14 2019가단6056

-대구지방법원 포항지원 2018.03.22 2017가합11464

-대전지방법원천안지원 2017.12.01 2017가합101587

-서울동부지방법원 2018.10.26 2017가단124809

-서울서부지방법원 2011.12.27 2010가단43668