logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.12.22 2016나2008914
청구이의
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 10, 2013, Plaintiff A made the Plaintiff B as the guarantor, and made the Defendant as “I, by November 10, 2013, pay to the obligee C (the Defendant) the daily amount of KRW 100 million. (A creditor C made an investment of KRW 70 million in the amount of KRW 30% in the amount of KRW 30% in the amount of KRW 30% in the amount of KRW 2008,000,000,000 in the amount of KRW 30% in the amount of KRW 30% in the amount of KRW 10,000,000 in the amount of KRW 30,000 in the amount of KRW 20,000,000 in the amount of KRW 30,000 in the amount of KRW 30,000 in the amount of KRW 30,000 in the amount

B. On the same day, the Plaintiffs issued to the Defendant a promissory note No. 1,000,000 won at face value and on November 10, 2013, and a notary public issued a promissory note No. 286, which is the law firm branch of June 10, 2013, with a promissory note No. 286, that there is no objection even if a notary public is immediately subject to compulsory execution (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

C. On October 14, 2013, Plaintiff B asserted that “The Defendant, even though there was no fact that the Defendant made an investment of KRW 700,000,000 to E and received 30% of its shares, by deceiving the Plaintiffs, had the Defendant prepare the instant letter of payment and the notarial deed.” On March 3, 2014, Plaintiff B filed a complaint on suspicion of fraud, and withdrawn the complaint on March 3, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

A. 1 Plaintiffs: (a) did not have invested KRW 700,000,000 in E or acquired 30% of E equity in around 2008; (b) did not have invested the said money in E; and (c) completed the instant payment angle and notarial deed by deceiving the Plaintiffs as if they acquired equity shares; (d) however, the Plaintiffs revoked their declaration of intent by deception.

arrow