(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.08.20 2019가단273944

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 2020.08.20 2019가단273944

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On the basis of the original copy of the No. 662 of the notarial deed No. 662, 2008 (hereinafter “No. 662”), the deceased F (hereinafter “the deceased”) filed an application with a notary public against the Plaintiff for the attachment and assignment order of claims against the Plaintiff E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) on the basis of the original copy of the notarial deed No. 662, 2008 (hereinafter “No. 1270).

B. On June 27, 2008, the above court rendered a decision on the seizure and assignment order of claims (hereinafter “instant order”). The above decision was served on E, a garnishee, on June 30, 2008, and was served on the Plaintiff on July 3, 2008.

C. The Deceased died on May 3, 2013, and the Defendant B’s spouse, Defendant C, and D are the deceased’s children.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion recommended the deceased to prepare the notarial deed of this case where the deceased as the debtor although he did not have any obligation or obligation between the deceased and his relative related persons in order to avoid compulsory execution against other creditors while receiving demand for repayment from the obligees. In response, the plaintiff and the deceased prepared the notarial deed of this case.

Therefore, the notarial deed of this case is null and void as it is prepared in accordance with a false conspiracy, and the deceased illegally received the claim of this case on the basis of the notarial deed of this case null and void, so the Defendants, the deceased’s heir, have a duty to transfer the claim of this case to the Plaintiff and notify the transfer thereof to E, a third obligor.

3. In the judgment, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff and the Deceased prepared the instant notarial deed even though they did not have any obligation or obligation, and it is different.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 밀양지원 2018.02.06 2017가단11140

-광주지방법원 2014.02.04 2013가단55824

-창원지방법원 2012.05.24 2010가합9382

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.07.08 2016가합288

-서울서부지방법원 2014.10.02 2013가합12488