(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.01.15 2014가합6061

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) 서울남부지방법원 2015.01.15 2014가합6061

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On January 8, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) entrusted a notary public to a law firm C general law office; and (b) completed notarial deeds of promissory notes Nos. 12 through 31, 2013 (hereinafter “each of the instant notarial deeds”).

Each notarial deed of this case states that a promissory note with the issuer’s face value of KRW 1,00,000 shall be attached respectively to the Plaintiff, the payee, and the issuer’s face value shall be KRW 1,00,000, and that “When delay in the payment of a bill to the holder of a bill to which the issuer is attached, no objection shall be

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was the Defendant’s filing of a request to return the Plaintiff’s gold mold.

Accordingly, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant shall not return the gold mold because it supplied the goods produced by the Defendant using the said gold mold to E, a trade name “D” and did not receive the price of KRW 20,000,000,000.”

Accordingly, the plaintiff prepared each of the notarial deeds in this case to guarantee the payment of KRW 20,000,000 to the defendant, and received the above notarial deed from the defendant.

In fact, however, there was no obligation to pay KRW 20,000,000 to the defendant of E.

Therefore, the plaintiff seeks to refuse compulsory execution based on each of the notarial deeds of this case against the defendant.

B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant used the name of the representative in the name of "D" and registered the business from "D" and supplied the goods to the F who operated the business, and did not receive 20,000,000 won from "F."

In addition, in order to guarantee F’s obligation to pay KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant, each of the instant notarial deeds was prepared under the agreement of the Plaintiff, Defendant, and F three parties.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Each judgment number is the case with Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 8.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 충주지원 2018.11.07 2018가단1981

-대전지방법원 2015.09.17 2014가단46379

-인천지방법원부천지원 2016.09.02 2016가단4718

-광주고등법원 2017.07.14 2015나15909

-광주지방법원 2016.05.11 2015가단514280