logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.07.20 2017가합20436
청구이의
Text

1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is a promissory note No. 43, March 23, 2016, signed on March 23, 2016.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 23, 2016, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a promissory note with the face value of KRW 800 million, issue date March 23, 2016, and September 22, 2016. On the same day, a notary public prepared and issued a notarized bill No. 43 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

B. On October 18, 2016, the Plaintiff repaid the Defendant KRW 50 million.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the assertion 1) The reasoning for which the primary plaintiff made the instant authentic deed to the Defendant on March 23, 2016 was to return the Defendant’s investment amount of KRW 600 million and KRW 200 million in connection with the instant authentic deed from June 28, 2014 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”). The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to make a subsequent settlement of the amount of money that the Plaintiff paid from time to time before the said authentic deed was made. The Plaintiff paid to the Defendant KRW 560 million in total nine times from September 19, 2014 to October 18, 2016 (including KRW 50 million, which was recognized as above, and KRW 300,000,000,000,000 to the Defendant on September 18, 2016). The Defendant’s conjunctive execution on the instant authentic deed shall be denied to the Defendant without any legal ground of KRW 200,000,0000,000.

Based on the claim for return of unjust enrichment of KRW 510 million against the Defendant, the Plaintiff offsets the Defendant’s remaining claim against the Plaintiff based on the instant authentic deed by KRW 750 million.

The compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case shall be dismissed only on the portion exceeding KRW 240 million (i.e., KRW 750 million - KRW 510 million).

B. Judgment Nos. 1 to 5 and the entire pleadings as to the primary and conjunctive arguments.

arrow