logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.01.14 2014가합882
청구이의 등
Text

1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, No. 1515, 201, 201, drawn up by Law Firm Songwon on October 26, 201.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff borrowed money from the Defendant several times from August 2009 to November 201, 2010.

B. After that, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to issue a promissory note to secure its payment. On October 26, 201, the Plaintiff issued one promissory note, which is payable at sight, on October 26, 201, with the issuer, the Plaintiff’s face value of KRW 250,000,000, and the issue date of the promissory note, which is payable at sight.

(hereinafter referred to as “the Promissory Notes”). On the same day, the Plaintiff, along with the Defendant, entrusted a notary public with the preparation of a notarial deed to a law firm consignor, and accordingly a notary public, signed a notarial deed No. 1515 of the 2011, No. 1515 of the 2011, No. 2010, No. 1515 of the notarial deed,

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap's entry in Gap's evidence 7 through 10, 14, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 120,390,000 from the Defendant, and the Defendant was reimbursed by the Plaintiff more than 190,801,00 won, and the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 70,411,000 paid in excess of the borrowed amount to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. In addition, as seen earlier, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s obligation to borrow money against the Defendant is extinguished, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case shall be denied.

3. Determination

A. (1) The amount of principal of the loan that the Defendant lent to the Plaintiff is as follows: (a) The fact that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 120,390,000 in total on several occasions from August 2009 to November 201, 201 that the Plaintiff borrowed from the Defendant to the account is not a dispute between the parties. (b) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff lent to the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 250,000,000, which is equivalent to the face value of the Promissory Notes, including the above KRW 120,390,000,000, which is the face value of the instant Promissory Notes, due to the direct lending of the said KRW 120,390,000,00 in cash; and (c) so, each of the descriptions of the instant KRW 14,000,00,

arrow