(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.17 2018가단5058291

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.17 2018가단5058291

청구이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Basic Facts

On March 5, 2014, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a promissory note with a face value of KRW 67,224,000, and due date on May 30, 2014. On the same day, the Plaintiff commissioned a notary public of the joint law office to prepare a notarial deed stating that “the said promissory note is issued and sealed by the person who is the holder of the said promissory note, and, if the payment of the amount is delayed, there is no objection even if there is no compulsory execution.”

Accordingly, the No. 378 of the No. 2014 No. 378 of the No. 2014 No. 378 of the notarial deed of promissory notes (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) was drawn up by a notary public.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, summary of plaintiff's argument as a whole, compulsory execution based on the No. 1 of this case should be denied for the following reasons.

The notarial deed of this case was prepared by the defendant's strong pressure, and thus null and void.

The defendant arbitrarily brought his house in the plaintiff's office after preparing the notarial deed of this case.

In addition, the Defendant forced to cut off the E truck purchased by the Plaintiff on January 3, 2013 (hereinafter “instant truck”), and the Plaintiff accordingly, was liable for the instant truck purchase cost, taxes, and the fine for negligence for stopping.

As such, the Defendant acquired profits above the amount of claims under the instant authentic deed from the Plaintiff.

Judgment

With respect to the claim that the notarial deed of this case is null and void, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the notarial deed of this case was prepared by the defendant's strong pressure, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

With respect to the assertion that the debt on the notarial deed of this case was fully repaid, the statement of Gap evidence No. 3 (the complaint) alone is sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant arbitrarily brings the house stored in the plaintiff's office or deducted the truck of this case.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2016.07.01 2015가단21768

-서울고등법원 2016.04.22 2015나2055784

-춘천지방법원 2016.10.27 2016가단53100

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.27 2014가단234955

-수원지방법원 2021.04.27 2018가단532877