logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.08.26 2015가합32639
청구이의
Text

1.(a)

No. 2882 of 2009 and notary public against the plaintiff of defendant B are law firms.

Reasons

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

On July 10, 2009, the Plaintiff, without a separate custodian, deemed the debtor as the custodian, received a decision to commence the rehabilitation procedure (Seoul Central District Court 2009dan78). At the same time, the Plaintiff was decided to obtain the court’s permission to enter into a contract, such as a loan for consumption, etc., for which the disbursement of the amount of at least one million won is anticipated as the custodian, and to institute a lawsuit, to appoint an attorney, and to conduct all procedural acts, etc. pursuant to Article 61 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”).

B. On September 21, 2009, the Plaintiff made an authentic deed No. 2882 of the Seowon Law Firm No. 2009, No. 2882, a notary public to the effect that he/she jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s debt of KRW 400,000 and delayed damages against Defendant B, the Plaintiff’s partner, within the limit of KRW 400,000,000,

On February 19, 2010, the Plaintiff confirmed that Defendant B bears the Plaintiff’s obligation of KRW 200 million and its interest rate of KRW 12% per annum with D, and accepted the compulsory execution with respect thereto, and on the same day, the Plaintiff confirmed that Defendant C bears the obligation of KRW 100 million and its interest rate of KRW 12% per annum with D, and drafted a notarized deed No. 48, 2010 with the same legal entity’s interest to accept the compulsory execution with respect thereto.

(hereinafter referred to as “each notarial deed of this case” in total. (c)

The plaintiff did not obtain permission from the court in preparing each of the notarial deeds of this case.

2. The Defendants’ determination as to the defense of this case is that the notarial deeds drawn up on February 19, 2010 among the notarial deeds of this case are the same as the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s obligations.

arrow