logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 진주지원 2018.06.07 2017가단36693
청구이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. With respect to cases where this Court applies for the suspension of compulsory execution 2017 Chicago1024, September 2017

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and the defendant are siblings.

B. When the Plaintiff borrowed money to the Defendant, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the interest with the interest, and the Defendant lent the amount of 100 million won to the Plaintiff several times from December 15, 2004 to January 3, 2006.

C. Around January 6, 2006, the Plaintiff, at the Defendant’s request, entered the cash custody certificate (No. 3, hereinafter “the cash custody certificate of this case”) stating that “I shall keep KRW 100 million and return at any time upon request of the Defendant and the Defendant’s husband C,” and entered the cash custody certificate of this case and attached the Plaintiff’s husband D’s name and affixed the Plaintiff’s husband D and delivered it to the Defendant.

The Defendant filed an application for the payment order against the Plaintiff and D for the payment of the instant debt, and on November 20, 2013, the Changwon District Court rendered a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “The Plaintiff and D jointly and severally filed with the Defendant for the payment order, from September 6, 2013 to September 6, 2013, with the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order, KRW 1.5 million per month, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (hereinafter “instant payment order”), which became final and conclusive as is.

E. D filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Defendant against the instant payment order, and on May 16, 2017, the Changwon District Court Jinju Branch Branch rendered a judgment that the Plaintiff affixed D’s seal on the cash custody certificate of the instant case without authority and rejected compulsory execution based on the instant payment order.

‘The judgment' was pronounced (2016da35426) and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

F. Meanwhile, the details paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant as repayment of the instant obligation are as shown in the attached Form No. 3 (Evidence No. 5).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 13, and

arrow