(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.01.19 2013가합9400

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 2017.01.19 2013가합9400

청구이의

Text

1. A notary public C office of the defendant's Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office against the plaintiff in the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office was signed on December 27, 2011.

Reasons

1. Presumed facts

A. On December 27, 2011, D, on behalf of the Plaintiff, drafted and issued a notarial deed stating that “The Plaintiff and E, F, G, and D bear a total of KRW 208,00,000 on behalf of the Defendant, shall be paid by January 22, 2012, and interest shall be determined by 30% per annum” (No. 12234, 201, hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

B. On October 29, 2013, the Defendant filed an application for seizure of the Plaintiff’s right to claim the transfer registration of real estate ownership against the International Trust Co., Ltd. with the title of execution of the notarial deed of this case as the title of execution.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's gist of the plaintiff's assertion argues that "The notarial deed of this case is invalid since it was made by D without the authority to act on behalf of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff does not bear the defendant's obligation under the notarial deed of this case. Even if the plaintiff is liable to pay the defendant's obligation under the notarial deed of this case, since the debtor's obligation under the notarial deed of this case is five (the plaintiff, E, F, G, and D), it shall be borne only by 1/5."

3. The indication of recognition and recognition of execution, which allows judgment to have executory power as a title of debt, is an act of litigation against a notary public, so in case where a notarial deed is prepared by a commission of an unauthorized representative, it is not effective as a title of debt, and the burden of proof as to the existence of power to prepare such notarial deed has the effect of proof on the creditor

(2) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s director at the time of preparing the notarial deed of this case is insufficient to deem that D had the power of attorney to prepare the notarial deed of this case on the sole basis of the fact that D had the right of attorney to prepare the notarial deed of this case.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2020.11.03 2019가단123822

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.10 2017가단5142588

-청주지방법원 영동지원 2018.05.04 2016가단5015

-전주지방법원 2017.10.18 2017가단7356

-수원지방법원성남지원 2016.03.04 2015가단211219