(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.10.20 2014가단31544

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) 대전지방법원 2015.10.20 2014가단31544

청구이의

Text

1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, No. 1282, Dec. 24, 2007, 2007, No. 1282.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Since May 2006, C, the Plaintiff’s wife, borrowed money from the Defendant several times.

B. On December 24, 2007, the Defendant: (a) lent KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff on December 15, 2007; (b) on December 15, 2007, C and C jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation; and (c) the Plaintiff and C made a money loan loan contract notarial deed (hereinafter “notarial deed in this case”) containing the purport that they would have no objection even if they were immediately subject to compulsory execution at the time of nonperformance; and (d) on the instant notarial deed, the instant notarial deed accompanied by a power of attorney and a certificate of personal seal impression issued by an application stating that “the Plaintiff delegates the authority to commission C to prepare the instant notarial deed.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The indication of the recognition and recognition of execution, which allows the judgment on the cause of the claim to have an executory power as an executory power, is an act of litigation against a notary public, and in case where a notarial deed is prepared upon the commission of an executory power agent, there is no executory power (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da2803, Mar. 24, 2006). The burden of proving that there is an executory power to prepare such notarial deed

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da42047 delivered on February 22, 1994, etc.). The Plaintiff’s power of attorney attached to the notarial deed of this case was prepared by C, and the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression was issued by C, and the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone cannot be deemed as having the authority to represent the Plaintiff at the time of preparation of the notarial deed of this case.

Therefore, this case’s notarial deed is null and void as it was made upon the commission of an unauthorized person, and compulsory execution based thereon is not permissible.

3. Conclusion.

참조판례

-대법원 1994. 2. 22. 선고 93다42047 판결

-대법원 2006. 3. 24. 선고 2006다2803 판결

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2017.08.31 2017나204897

-서울북부지방법원 2015.08.25 2014가단44021

-울산지방법원 2014.12.11 2014가합5896

-광주지방법원 2020.02.13 2019가단12379