logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.07.02 2019나59157
청구이의
Text

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

A notary public against the plaintiff is a joint law office of the defendant.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. D, on June 30, 2017, borrowed interest of KRW 50,000,000 from the Defendant at 25% per annum, and on July 30, 2017, and issued and delivered a document for borrowing money with the same content to the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

D On the same day, D, as the agent of the Plaintiff, who is the joint and several surety, as the debtor himself/herself and the defendant, borrowed the above money from the defendant and agreed to guarantee it by a notary public as Cjoint Law Office No. 975 (hereinafter referred to as "notarial deeds of this case") in 2017.

C. D on October 19, 2018, paid KRW 5,000,00 to the Defendant for the repayment of the instant loan.

On October 25, 2018, the Defendant recovered KRW 2,200,000 by compulsory execution of corporeal movables based on the instant notarial deed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 3, 4, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion as the principal obligor of the notarial deed of this case did not receive KRW 50,000,000 from the Defendant, D does not have any obligation against the Plaintiff based on the notarial deed of this case.

The existence of obligations even if any

Even if the principal obligor D and the Defendant paid KRW 5,00,000 to the Defendant around July 2018, as the principal obligor, agreed that D would complete the settlement of all the claims and obligations between D and the Defendant (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s settlement agreement”). After that agreement, D would pay KRW 5,00,000 to the Defendant on October 19, 2018, thereby completing the settlement of accounts, and all the Plaintiff’s obligations against the Defendant, a joint surety, have expired. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the instant authentic deed against the Plaintiff should be denied.

B. Determination 1: (a) the Plaintiff’s debt settlement based on the notarial deed of this case against the Defendant; and (b) the evidence and arguments presented earlier.

arrow