(영문) 부산지방법원 2020.05.20 2019가단6627

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) 부산지방법원 2020.05.20 2019가단6627

추심금

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 September 18, 2015, the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed of a loan for consumption (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the content that KRW 130,000,000 shall be lent to C as of September 17, 2017 between C and C.

B. Based on the instant authentic deed, the Plaintiff filed an application for a seizure and collection order with the Busan District Court 2019T and a third obligor as Defendant and with the claim to be seized and collected by the Plaintiff as “the money until it reaches the claim amount of KRW 130,000,000, out of the loan refund claims which C has against the Defendant.” On April 1, 2019, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order with the same content from the above court (hereinafter “instant claim seizure and collection order”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C holds a claim for the return of the loan claim or lease deposit amounting to KRW 70,000,000 against the Defendant. As the Plaintiff seized and collected the above claim against the Defendant based on the instant notarial deed, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 130,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion does not bear the loan obligation or the obligation to return the lease deposit against C, and the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

3. Determination

A. According to the evidence evidence No. 3, the fact that C remitted KRW 70,000,00 to the Defendant on February 3, 2017 can be acknowledged, but the above fact of recognition alone is insufficient to recognize that C entered into a monetary loan contract with the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that C has a monetary loan claim against the Defendant is without merit.

B. The phrase “the indication of the claim to be seized” in the collection order should be objectively interpreted according to the content itself.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원서부지원 2020.06.03 2019가단6762

-부산지방법원 서부지원 2021.02.19 2020가단375

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.12 2015가합559245

-전주지방법원남원지원 2016.08.10 2016가단463

-수원지방법원 2018.11.28 2018가단514497