(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.07.15 2015가단32592

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) 의정부지방법원 2016.07.15 2015가단32592

강제집행정지결정

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On June 1, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note with face value of KRW 300 million at face value, the issuer, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the due date for payment to the Defendant, and on October 20, 2014, a notary public, the purport of which “it is the person who has issued and affixed the promissory note, and if he/she delays the payment of the amount to the bearer, he/she shall be deemed as having no objection thereto even if he/she is immediately subject to compulsory execution,” prepared a deed of promissory note No. 411, 2014 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) and delivered it to the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. In order to prevent the compulsory execution by other creditors against the corporeal movables of the Macheon Hospital operated by the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the person holding the seizure of the said corporeal movables falsely prepared the instant corporeal movables as the Defendant’s proposal, which is by a false declaration of conspiracy. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the notarial deeds of this case shall not be permitted.

B. Only the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 12, 13, 14, 18, and 19 are insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant have made a false representation of conspiracy in the issuance of the Promissory Notes and the preparation of authentic deeds of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion seeking the exclusion of the executory power under the presumption that the preparation of the notarial deed of this case is a false conspiracy is without merit.

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the claim under the notarial deed of this case was extinguished by a quasi-loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on May 29, 2015, but it is insufficient to recognize it only by the statement of evidence No. 14, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.04.28 2015가단31400

-인천지방법원부천지원 2016.03.25 2015가단114984

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.17 2018가단5058291

-광주지방법원목포지원 2019.11.27 2019가단775

-수원지방법원 2018.02.21 2016가단805021