logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.31 2015가합26707
사해행위취소및어음금
Text

1. Defendant B’s KRW 1,00,000,000 and annual interest thereon from November 11, 2013 to October 16, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant B

A. On June 10, 2013, Defendant B prepared and executed a notarial deed stating that the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 1 billion to the Plaintiff by November 10, 2013 (hereinafter “instant payment note”). On the same day, Defendant B issued to the Plaintiff a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with the face value of KRW 1 billion and the due date of November 10, 2013 (hereinafter “the instant promissory note”). A notary public prepared a notarial deed to the effect that no objection is raised even if he/she delays the payment of the said note under Article 286, a notarial deed, a law firm branch.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination 1) According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of the principal and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from September 19, 2017, which is the delivery of a copy of the application for modification of the purport of claim as of September 19, 2017, to the Plaintiff, from November 11, 2013, which is the day following the date of repayment of the agreement under the payment note of this case, and the payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment (the Plaintiff is entitled to selective payment of the agreed amount claim and the claim for payment of bills, and there is no evidence as to the fact that the Plaintiff lawfully presented the Promissory Notes prior to the filing of the lawsuit of this case, the total amount of the claim for payment of the Promissory Notes can be seen as the maximum amount of the claim.

(2) As to the Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B was drafted and published by the Plaintiff’s deception. <1> The instant payment note and promissory note were drafted and published by the Plaintiff’s deception.

arrow