(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.01.17 2018가단524722

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) 수원지방법원 2019.01.17 2018가단524722

청구이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 26, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entrusted the Plaintiff with the preparation of a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement with the effect that “The Defendant lent KRW 120 million to the Plaintiff on January 26, 2016, and on January 30, 2016, the due date for repayment was determined and lent to the Plaintiff on January 26, 2016, and that if the Plaintiff fails to perform his/her monetary obligation under this contract, it shall be immediately recognized that there is no objection even if compulsory execution is performed.” On the same day, C office of a notary public prepared a notarial deed (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

B. On April 19, 2018, the Defendant received a decision of seizure (U.S. District Court No. 2018TB7270, hereinafter “instant seizure order”) regarding the Plaintiff’s right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against D with the title of execution of the instant authentic deed as the title of execution.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Although the Defendant stated in the instant notarial deed that the Defendant lent KRW 120 million to the Plaintiff, in fact, the notarial deed of this case was prepared in falsity inasmuch as the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have any obligation or obligation relationship. In this regard, the Plaintiff was also prepared with a written confirmation to the effect that no enforcement of the notarial deed of this case is possible from the Defendant.

Therefore, this case’s notarial deed is null and void due to the absence of legal act, which is the cause of establishment of the claim.

3. Since the notarial deed of monetary loan for consumption itself proves the existence of a claim, as long as an notarial deed exists, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff, the obligor, bears the burden of proving the absence or extinguishment of a claim stated in the notarial deed of this case, and the Defendant, the obligee, is not obliged to prove the occurrence of a claim stated in the notarial deed of this case through other evidence.

The number of evidence Nos. 3 through 5 shall be sl.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원순천지원 2019.02.13 2018가단3803

-서울동부지방법원 2021.04.23 2020가단134554

-울산지방법원 2020.11.03 2019가단123822

-수원지방법원 2018.08.09 2017가단34826

-수원지방법원 2018.09.06 2017가단544040