logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.11.24 2015나22090
청구이의
Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

A notary public belonging to the Ulsan District Prosecutors' Office against the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 20 million from D on May 29, 2012, and paid the principal KRW 6 million among them.

After that, on September 7, 2012, the Plaintiff borrowed additional KRW 20 million from D, and paid 34 million interest per month on the borrowed principal.

B. On March 20, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) drafted a notarial deed in this case with the purport that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 34 million from the Defendant on March 20, 2013; (b) the Plaintiff borrowed at the rate of 30% per annum; and (c) on July 20, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 34 million to the Plaintiff and D’s members; and (b) written a written confirmation with the purport that the Plaintiff would be able to receive the Defendant if the Plaintiff received the advance payment (hereinafter “instant confirmation”).

C. On October 4, 2012, the Plaintiff paid to D KRW 1020,00,000 to June 1, 2012, KRW 1020,000,000,000 to December 3, 2012, and KRW 10220,000 to the Defendant’s punishment, and KRW 50,000,000 to April 23, 2013, KRW 50,000 to D, and KRW 5220,00 on May 8, 2013, KRW 520,000 to June 14, 2013, KRW 150,000,000 to June 11, 2013, and KRW 300,000,000 to each of them.

E died on January 2014, D around February 2014, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 4-4 through 10, 7, 8-7 through 16, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion was made and issued to the defendant the Notarial Deed and Written Confirmation, but it was made and delivered as security for debt against D, and it was not transferred to the defendant.

In addition, on October 30, 2013, the Plaintiff paid interest and principal to E with the authority to receive repayment for D and D claims, and E concluded that on October 30, 2013, the Plaintiff would have received payment of KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff and paid all the obligations.

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's obligations were extinguished, and the defendant's above notarial deed is valid.

arrow