logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.01.29 2014가합4792
청구이의
Text

1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is a notarial deed No. 875 of 2009, dated Dec. 21, 2009, issued by the defendant against the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 21, 2009, the Plaintiff drafted a promissory note No. 875 of the 2009 deed dated December 21, 2009, which was issued by a notary public to the Defendant on December 21, 2009, with the face value of KRW 290,000,000, and the due date of December 23, 2009 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

B. The Plaintiff filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity with Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Hadan2541 and 2013 201: (a) on June 5, 2013, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt (a discontinuation of bankruptcy on December 16, 2013); (b) on December 16, 2013, the decision to grant immunity was rendered; and (c) on January 3, 2014, the said decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on January 3, 2014. The list of creditors included “the name of creditors: the name of the Defendant, the date of use or purchase: 150,00,000 won: the first claim amount: the hospital operating expenses, financial expenses, etc.; the date of use or purchase; and (d) the first claim amount: 10,000,000 won (hereinafter “joint and several surety claim”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers), each of the facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the court granted immunity on the claim based on the Notarial Deed of this case

(1) The Defendant asserted that the instant notarial deed was made to secure the instant exemption claim, and that the instant notarial deed was issued by the Defendant to secure KRW 250,000,000,000 prepared on September 30, 200, and that the instant notarial deed was separate from the instant exemption claim.

나. 판단 (1) 앞서 든 각 증거에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 원고는 피고로부터 차용한 250,000,000원 중 꺽기보험 5,700만 원, 1회 납입금 5,000만 원 및 기타 비용을 공제하고 109,797,250원을 실제...

arrow