(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.06.16 2015가합742

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) 서울북부지방법원 2016.06.16 2015가합742

청구이의

Text

1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff on the No. 553 of the No. 2014 No. 553 of the No. 2014.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and the defendant had a separate family, and around October 2005, they had a relationship between a dance hall and a dance hall, from around that time until around the time when the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case.

B. On November 6, 2014, on which the Plaintiff had maintained an annual system with the Defendant, the Plaintiff issued a one copy of a promissory note payable at sight (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with a face value of KRW 385 million at a face value on November 6, 2014 (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with the Plaintiff as the issuer, and a notary public prepared a notarial deed No. 553 at a law firm branch office (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”), and then issued it to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff issued the Promissory Notes in collusion with the Defendant in order to pretend that the Plaintiff’s husband would have a relationship with the Defendant, even though he did not have borrowed money from the Defendant, and that he would have a relation with the Defendant in preparation for a case where the Plaintiff’s husband would have a relation with the Defendant, so the issuance of the Promissory Notes and the authentication of the Promissory Notes are null and void. Even if the Plaintiff was deprived of the Plaintiff’s freedom of decision-making and was subject to restrictions, the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to issue the Promissory Notes is null and void. However, even if the Plaintiff had a degree of being deprived of the Plaintiff’s freedom of decision-making, the Plaintiff cancelled the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to issue the Promissory Notes by the delivery of the instant complaint.

B. The defendant's gist of the defendant's assertion is to establish an internal relationship with the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2017.05.19 2016나10324

-서울서부지방법원 2017.05.10 2016가합37891

-서울서부지방법원 2017.04.27 2016가합38191

-서울고등법원 2017.12.15 2017나2025794

-인천지방법원 2016.11.30 2015가단28172