(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.11 2013가단318191

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 2015.12.11 2013가단318191

청구이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. As to the case of application for suspension of compulsory execution by this Court 2013 Chicago8, Dec. 12, 2013

Reasons

1. According to the notarial deed of a monetary loan contract for consumption (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) signed by Macheon-si on August 27, 2013 by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 70,000,000 from the Defendant on July 23, 2013 at the maturity rate of October 31, 2013 and at the rate of 24% per annum, and if a notary public fails to implement a monetary loan contract as above, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 70,000 from the Defendant on July 23, 2013 at the interest rate of arrears rate of 24% per annum.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion was requested by the plaintiff to lend KRW 50,000,000 from July 2013 during the time when the plaintiff had been engaged in monetary transactions with the plaintiff from around 2009 to around July 2013. The fact is that the plaintiff did not have the intent and ability to lend KRW 50,000 to the plaintiff, notwithstanding the fact, if the plaintiff prepared and delivered the notarial deed of this case to the defendant as collateral, then 20,000,000 out of the loan from the bond company as collateral shall be applied to the plaintiff for the repayment of the existing loan claim, and to the effect that the plaintiff would lend the remaining KRW 50,000,000 to the plaintiff. The plaintiff deceiving the plaintiff to prepare and deliver the notarial deed of this case.

Therefore, the notarial deed of this case is null and void, and the plaintiff does not bear any obligation under the monetary loan contract of this case against the defendant, so compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case is not allowed.

B. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant prepared and delivered the notarial deed of this case to secure the repayment of the loan obligation of KRW 70,000,000 to the defendant according to the monetary transaction relationship with the defendant.

Therefore, the Plaintiff bears the loan obligations, such as the content of the notarial deed of this case, against the Defendant.

3. Determination Nos. 5-7, 8, and 6-4, 6, 7, 8, 2, and 3 shall be taken into account the whole purport of the pleadings.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.20 2016나5794

-광주지방법원 2019.04.10 2018가단519132

-광주지방법원 2015.10.28 2015가단515009

-서울동부지방법원 2014.05.16 2013가합108066

-의정부지방법원 2014.11.26 2014가단23652