logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.05.26 2014가단104941 (1)
청구이의
Text

1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is a transfer for security against the plaintiff, Law Firm Sung-gu, 58, 2007.

Reasons

1. On September 28, 2007, the Plaintiff’s agent C and the Defendant’s agent D drafted on September 28, 2007, “The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 100,000,000 from the Defendant on September 28, 2007 at an annual interest rate of 10%, to pay the full amount in lump sum by September 27, 2012, and there is no objection to the compulsory execution without delay, and a notary public transfers the ownership of the household manufacturing machinery owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant by means of possession amendment for the purpose of securing the performance of the said obligation.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts that there is no dispute or do not clearly dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. (1) The plaintiff's assertion (1) although the defendant actually lent KRW 100 million to the plaintiff according to the notarial deed of this case, the notarial deed of this case was prepared falsely, and execution based on the notarial deed of this case shall not be allowed.

(2) Nonparty D, the Defendant’s husband of the Defendant, and Nonparty C, the Plaintiff’s husband, have 20 years or more, and the Defendant and D lent 200 million won or more with business funds, etc. over several times to the Plaintiff and the husband, prior to the preparation of the notarial deed of this case, and the Defendant and D decided to pay KRW 100 million in consideration of the circumstances of the Plaintiff and C.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff prepared and executed the instant notarial deed to the effect that the Plaintiff promised to repay to the Defendant.

Therefore, the notarial deed of this case is valid.

B. We examine whether the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s husband C have lent 200 million won or more with business funds, etc. over several times before the establishment of the notarial deed in this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

arrow