logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.08.09 2017가단2833
청구이의
Text

1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is a promissory note No. 762, 2015.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 12, 2015, the Defendant lent the instant promissory note to C as of December 11, 2015 (hereinafter “instant loan”). In order to secure the Defendant’s obligation of the instant loan, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a promissory note with a face value of KRW 50 million, the due date, December 11, 2015, the issuance date, October 12, 2015, the Plaintiff, and C (hereinafter “instant promissory note”), and on the same day, a notary public drafted a notarial deed (hereinafter “notarial deed”) with a law firm No. 762, as of the instant promissory note as of December 2015.

B. On January 3, 2017, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order as to the Plaintiff’s claim to return the lease deposit against D as the title of execution of the Notarial Deed as the title of execution.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that, as the instant loan claim, which is the underlying obligation of the Promissory Notes, has ceased to exist in full due to the repayment, the Defendant did not claim that compulsory execution based on the instant Notarial Deed should be denied.

3. The following facts or circumstances revealed by the statements in the Evidence Nos. 2 through 4 and 7 through 17 and the testimony of the witness C, i.e., ① issued one cashier’s checks of corporate bank (hereinafter “instant checks”) on December 9, 2015 and paid to the Defendant. ② C borrowed KRW 70 million from the Defendant on December 10, 2015, which is the following day, from the Defendant, on December 9, 2015, and lent KRW 50 million to C again on December 9, 2015; ③ on December 10, 2015, C borrowed the instant checks from the Defendant on December 10, 2015, as seen above, paid KRW 56 million to the Defendant as a fee. ④ On December 10, 2015, the Defendant merely borrowed additional amounts from the Defendant on December 10, 2015.

arrow