logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.05.11 2016가단540
청구이의
Text

1. No. 147 of November 26, 2001, No. 147 of the defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is the joint law office as C. 201.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 26, 2001, the Plaintiff drafted and issued a notarial deed of a monetary loan contract for consumption (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) No. 147, No. 2001, in which a notary public, which recognizes and acknowledges compulsory execution to the Defendant.

B. The Defendant, based on the instant authentic deed, applied for a compulsory auction on real estate owned by the Plaintiff to Seoul Southern District CourtD, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of objection as Seoul Central District Court 2013Da253317.

As a result of the hearing on January 16, 2015, the above court rendered a judgment on the defendant's compulsory execution based on the notarial deed No. 147 of the Cjoint Law Office (No. 147) No. 147 of the Cjoint Law Office (No. 2001), and on the amount exceeding 40% per annum from May 26, 2007 to June 30, 2007, and 30% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. The above judgment (part winning the plaintiff) declared that the defendant's appeal and appeal are all dismissed pursuant to the Seoul Central District Court Decisions No. 2015Na13514, Jul. 17, 2015; No. 2015Da51494, Nov. 26, 2015).

C. Accordingly, on December 23, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 5,00,00,00, which was recognized as liable for payment in the said final judgment, and the Plaintiff deposited KRW 40 per annum from May 26, 2007 to June 30, 2007, and annual interest KRW 12,920,547, totaling KRW 17,920,547, and KRW 19,619,07,07 (i.e., KRW 17,920,547, and KRW 12,920,547, and KRW 1,698,530, in total, from May 23, 2015 to December 23, 2015 (Deposit Date).

(Seoul Central District Court 2015No. 28637). [Grounds for Recognition] A, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, since compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case should be rejected.

arrow