logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.06.21 2015가단514440
청구이의
Text

1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, No. 480, March 27, 2015, No. 2015.

Reasons

1. On March 27, 2015, the Plaintiff prepared and issued to the Defendant a notarial deed under the Monetary Loan Agreement No. 480 of 2015 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the content that “the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 150 million from the Defendant on March 27, 2015 at 24% per annum and on September 30, 2015.”

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 6

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) from October 7, 2014 to February 2, 201 of the same month, the Defendant operated the online gambling site with C. In order to meet this, the Defendant incurred damages equivalent to KRW 85 million in the process and provided the Plaintiff with funds necessary for opening and operating the gambling site. In order to meet this, the Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to assist himself. The Plaintiff accepted this request. (2) The Defendant offered the Plaintiff with the document only for the purpose of showing his father who is the source of the fund. (3) The Defendant offered KRW 50 million and the amount equivalent to KRW 85 million and interest equivalent thereto, which the Plaintiff already saw, as well as KRW 150 million and the amount equivalent to interest equivalent thereto, and prepared the Notarial Deed by requesting the Plaintiff to submit the Notarial Deed on March 27, 2015.

3) On the same day, the Defendant paid KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff with the money for opening and operating the gambling site. 4) On the instant notarial deed, the sum of KRW 15 million and the interest equivalent thereto is KRW 100 million as the amount of losses incurred by the Defendant in operating the gambling site, which was written by the Defendant only for the purpose to show his father, as well as for the portion having no relation with the Plaintiff, which is invalid as it is not consistent with the substantive relationship. Even if not, it constitutes illegal consideration as the money invested in order to commit a crime of running the gambling site.

5..

arrow