logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.20 2016가단104171
청구이의
Text

1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is based on the No. 77 of the notarial deed No. 2012.

Reasons

1. The facts below the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or can be recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of Gap's testimony and pleading in each statement of Gap's evidence 1 to 16 (including the number of branch numbers), and each statement of Eul's evidence 1 to 8 is insufficient to reverse the above recognition.

On January 31, 2012, the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement on KRW 200 million (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with a notary public, No. 77, 2012, against the Defendant (hereinafter “D”) for the payment of the gold-type money that the Plaintiff had operated against the Defendant.

B. On February 15, 2015, the Plaintiff requested C, the wife, to the effect that “D has been engaged in gold production transactions with the Defendant, and the Defendant did not load the gold, and the Defendant prepared a notarial deed of monetary loan for consumption, but the Defendant also demanded the security. As such, C, the nominal owner of the apartment in the Plaintiff and C, together with a promissory note Nos. 120,000 won, would have been able to set up a collateral to the Defendant along with a promissory note Nos. 120,000 won.”

C. After accepting it on February 16, 2015, C visited the Plaintiff at a notarial office located in Bupyeongcheon with the Plaintiff on February 16, 2015, and agreed to prepare a promissory note amounting to KRW 120 million presented by the Defendant between the Defendant and the Defendant, and a document establishing a mortgage agreement on the said apartment (hereinafter “instant real property”).

In that place, C received KRW 20,000,00 from the her husband's her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her she

C In this Court, “BC” himself 100 million won.

arrow