(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.23 2015가단51935

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.23 2015가단51935

청구이의

Text

1. The Defendant’s legal representative on July 3, 2013, No. 899, No. 2013.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the representative of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”), and the defendant is an employee of the above company.

B. On July 3, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant approved that the Plaintiff’s overdue wages to be paid to the Defendant are KRW 12,00,000,000, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,000,000 to the Defendant until July 30, 2013, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 9,00,000 to the Defendant until January 31, 2014, and damages for delay shall be KRW 20% per annum, and even once, a notary public, who shall lose the benefit of time and immediately repay all of the remainder of the debt (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1.3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The plaintiff argues that the plaintiff's argument on the invalidation or revocation of the preparation of the Notarial Deed of this case is revoked because the plaintiff prepared the Notarial Deed of this case by assault and intimidation of D, which is the defendant's reference, although he did not have an obligation to pay the defendant 12,00,000 won to the defendant, since the preparation of Notarial Deed of this case constitutes a juristic act of anti-social order or unfair juristic act, which is null and void, or constitutes a false declaration of intention or coercion.

(2) We examine the judgment, 1. There is no basis to regard the contents of the notarial deed of this case as being in violation of good morals and other social order, and 2. there is no evidence to deem that the contents of the notarial deed of this case have significantly lost fairness. 3. The preparation of the notarial deed of this case by only the descriptions of the notarial deed Nos. 3 and 4 was not genuine.

It is not sufficient to recognize the fact that or D made a mistake of the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

Therefore, the notarial deed of this case is equivalent.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 서부지원 2018.12.06 2018가합100859

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2014.12.03 2014가합51725

-서울서부지방법원 2017.11.08 2016가단222036

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.12.14 2017가합104328

-서울남부지방법원 2016.08.23 2016가단207083