logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.10.28 2014가합55311
청구이의
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 1, 2012, Plaintiff A borrowed KRW 50,000,00 from the Defendant (hereinafter “the first loan”). On the same day, Plaintiff A issued a seal imprint certificate and a certificate of personal seal impression and a power of attorney, etc. to the Defendant. On the same day, a notary public drafted a notarial deed of money loan agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed”) containing the purport that “Plaintiff A borrowed KRW 50,000,000 from the Defendant as interest rate of KRW 30% per annum and the due date of payment until May 1, 2012, and Plaintiff A borrowed the said loan obligation against the Defendant by setting forth in No. 68, 2012 as “No. 1” (hereinafter “notarial deed”).

B. On March 7, 2012, Plaintiff A borrowed KRW 110,000,000 from the Defendant, and KRW 20,000,000 on September 3, 2012, respectively (hereinafter “each of the above borrowed amounts”), respectively.

C. On August 7, 2012, Plaintiff A remitted KRW 5,500,00 to a bank account under the Defendant’s mother’s name.

On December 4, 2012, the Defendant appeared at a law firm as well as a creditor and the agent of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 110,00,000 from the Defendant as interest rate of 30% per annum and as of January 7, 2013, and requested the Plaintiff to prepare a notarial deed stating that “if the Plaintiff fails to perform the above loan obligation against the Defendant, it shall be immediately acknowledged that there is no objection even if compulsory execution is performed,” and on the same day, the notary public drafted a notarial deed of the above content (hereinafter referred to as “second notarial deed”) as stipulated in Article 775 of the notarial Deed as a law firm preparation.

E. On January 20, 2014, the Defendant issued a seizure and collection order with respect to the Plaintiff’s claim for the refund of the lease deposit against Plaintiff F and the deposit claim against Plaintiff F, as Seoul Northern District Court 2014TTTTT18171. ② On February 4, 2014, the Seoul Northern District Court 2014TTTT2024.

arrow