logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.06 2015가단5146074
청구이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 10, 2014, under the joint and several sureties’s joint and several sureties, the Defendant leased KRW 100,000,000 to the Plaintiff as interest rate of KRW 18% per annum and due date of payment September 10, 2014. On the same day, the Plaintiff issues to the Defendant a promissory note with a maturity of KRW 100,000,000, and a payment date of KRW 100,000,000, and a promissory note with a sight payment (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) to the Defendant who delayed the payment of the amount of the instant promissory note, the Defendant drafted a power of representation (hereinafter “the instant delegation”).

B. Accordingly, the Defendant entrusted the preparation of a notarial deed as the Plaintiff’s agent, who is the addressee and the issuer of the Promissory Notes. Accordingly, on June 5, 2014, the notary public drafted a notarial deed of Promissory Notes No. 238, No. 2014 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) on the Promissory Notes No. 238, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s husband, who is the Plaintiff’s husband before the Plaintiff’s assertion, intends to borrow KRW 100 million as security for the lease deposit of the private letter, which is the Plaintiff’s lessee. However, the Plaintiff, the owner of the lease contract for the above private letter, must be the principal debtor, on the ground that there is the fact that the Plaintiff prepared the certificate of loan and the document stating the Defendant’s omission, and it is not confirmed that the Plaintiff’s seal was affixed to the letter of delegation without confirming that it is the content of granting the right of representation for the preparation of the authentic deed, and there was no fact that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 100 million corresponding to the claim constituting the cause of the promissory note from the Defendant

Therefore, the Notarial Deed of this case is a cause claim.

arrow