(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.06.01 2015가합5517

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) 부산지방법원 2016.06.01 2015가합5517

공증증서무효확인등

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 January 5, 2010, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 150,00,00 from the Defendant on June 25, 2010 with interest rate of KRW 25%, and on June 30, 2010, the Plaintiff shall transfer the Defendant’s registration of the transfer of the land (hereinafter “instant land”) without restriction, such as provisional attachment, seizure, provisional disposition, etc. with respect to the entry C, D, and E, (hereinafter “instant land”), and (2) as collateral, the Plaintiff prepared the instant agreement with respect to the instant bonds (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with respect to the total bond offices established in the Busan-gun, Busan-gun, and 2, 102, 106, 206, 301, 802, 803, 901, 101, 1301, 1304, 1306, 1403, and 1403 (hereinafter “the instant agreement”).

B. On September 27, 2011, the Plaintiff was convicted of having borrowed KRW 150,00,000 from the Defendant by deceiving the Defendant, despite having no intention or ability to perform the obligation under the instant agreement, as Busan District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Decision 2010,000,000.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff did not intend to transfer the ownership of the instant land to the Defendant at the time of the preparation of the instant agreement, or to offer the claim for the right to collateral security to the instant land as security. Therefore, the instant agreement was based on the intention of intention not to be true. The Defendant knew or could have known that at the time of filing a complaint by fraud, etc., the Plaintiff did not have any intention under the instant agreement, and thus, the Plaintiff’s expression of intent under the said agreement is null and void. Accordingly, there was no obligation under the said agreement.

B. We examine the judgment, and the proviso of Article 107(1) of the Civil Act, the expression of intention is not the truth of the reporter.

참조조문

-민법 제107조 제1항

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2018.04.26 2017가합1846

-부산지방법원동부지원 2019.11.26 2019가단243

-서울서부지방법원 2020.05.07 2019나37537

-수원지방법원 2018.11.21 2018가단521563

-부산지방법원 2019.06.25 2018가단310718