(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.12.17 2013가합8940

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) 대전지방법원 2014.12.17 2013가합8940

청구이의

Text

1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff in the C Joint Office C on June 22, 2007 No. 4929 dated 2007.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The relationship between the plaintiff and D is between husband and wife, and D died on June 19, 201.

On June 22, 2007, E, on behalf of the Plaintiff and D, borrowed 80 million won from the Defendant on June 22, 2007 at the due date set by D on September 22, 2007 and 36% per annum of interest (payment on September 22, 2007) by a notary public against the Defendant on June 22, 2007, under the Monetary Loan Agreement No. 4929, stating that “When D and D fail to perform their obligations under this Agreement, they shall recognize that there is no objection even if they are subject to compulsory execution.”

The Plaintiff asserted that at the time of the preparation of the instant notarial deed, the Plaintiff did not grant the right of representation to conclude the said joint and several notarial deed with D or E, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Defendant as Daejeon District Court 2010Gahap10461. On April 11, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded an agreement including the following (hereinafter “instant agreement”), and the Plaintiff withdrawn the said lawsuit on May 9, 201.

1. The compulsory execution based on the authentic copy of the notarial deed of this case shall not be permitted to exceed five hundred million won.

2. In addition, the defendant is entitled to enforce a compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case only to the amount less than one billion won in the event that the amount to be repaid is less than one billion won through the registration of establishment of a mortgage near the maximum debt amount of 1.2 billion won, which was completed by the Daejeon District Court No. 36349, Apr. 14, 2008 (including the exercise of the subrogation right to the real estate indicated in the attached Table 2 of F, which was offered to the bank as a joint collateral) with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list No. 1, which was owned by D.1.

3.(a)

However, for the guarantee of the amount of authentication under the above Paragraph (1), the plaintiff shall be the defendant.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.07.24 2013가합536552

-서울남부지방법원 2014.11.20 2014나52204

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.20 2018가단5017337

-광주지방법원목포지원 2017.11.29 2017가단1781

-서울남부지방법원 2014.06.12 2013가단47747