(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.01.12 2016가합72095

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) 수원지방법원 2017.01.12 2016가합72095

청구이의

Text

1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is based on the No. 332, 2015 No. 332.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 25, 2015, the Defendant recommended that the Plaintiff make an investment in the financial company called “C” (hereinafter “instant company”) that was known to the Plaintiff, and paid KRW 227,170,000 to D, introduced as the representative director of the said company.

B. On June 12, 2015, the Defendant: (a) appeared as the client and the Plaintiff’s agent in Samwon as the agent; and (b) requested a notary public to prepare a notarial deed stating that “the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 227,170,000 from the Defendant on March 25, 2015; and (c) on September 25, 2015, the Plaintiff shall repay the borrowed money; and (d) if the Plaintiff fails to perform the said monetary obligation, the Plaintiff shall immediately be subject to compulsory execution; and (e) on the same day, a notarial deed under a money loan agreement of KRW 332, 2015 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

C. Based on the instant notarial deed, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order as the Suwon District Court 2015TT24641.

The Defendant received a total of KRW 172,602,552 from the instant company as the name of dividend, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion did not borrow money from the defendant, and did not know the fact that the notarial deed of this case was prepared. The notarial deed of this case is invalid because there was no obligation to borrow money which was the cause of preparation.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case should be denied.

Even if the validity of the notarial deed of this case is recognized, since the defendant recovered KRW 172,602,552 out of the investment money from the company of this case, the part in excess of KRW 54,567,448, which is the amount obtained by deducting KRW 172,60,00 from KRW 227,170,00 from the compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case, shall be dismissed.

3. Determination

A. The instant case.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안산지원 2016.10.11 2016가단61740 (1)

-대구지방법원 2019.04.25 2017가단125327

-수원지방법원 2016.07.07 2015가단60081

-서울서부지방법원 2016.03.22 2015가단38906

-인천지방법원 2019.09.20 2019가단8978