(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2015.11.19 2015가합204881

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) 수원지방법원성남지원 2015.11.19 2015가합204881

청구이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. On August 4, 2015, this Court

Reasons

1. On December 1, 2014, a notary public, a non-exclusive law firm, a non-exclusive law firm, and a document No. 871 of 2014, which is based on the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, drafted a notarial deed of monetary loan for consumption (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) as follows:

Article 1 (Purpose) The Defendant lent KRW 270,000,000 to the Plaintiff on August 12, 2014, and the Plaintiff borrowed this.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). Article 2 (Period and Method of Payment) (Payment) is to be made by December 30, 2014.

Article 9 (Recognition of Compulsory Execution) When the plaintiff has failed to discharge his pecuniary obligation under this contract, the plaintiff acknowledged the absence of objection immediately after compulsory execution.

The agent of the plaintiff and the defendant: C / [Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff did not borrow the instant loan from the Defendant, there is no claim that constitutes the basis for compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed.

B. The plaintiff did not express his/her intention to prepare the notarial deed of this case or delegated C with the preparation of the notarial deed, and there is no fact that the plaintiff declared his/her intention to recognize the compulsory execution, so the notarial deed of this case has no effect

C. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case must be rejected.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 1 and 2 evidence, the Defendant lent to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 270,000,000 (= KRW 90,000,000) totaling KRW 60,000,000 on April 19, 2010, and KRW 120,000 on July 29, 201, as well as KRW 270,000,000 (= KRW 90,000,000) with the power of attorney attached by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and KRW 120,00,000,000 on KRW 60,000,00 on KRW 120,00 on a power of attorney attached by each of the Plaintiff’s personal seal impression.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant has a loan claim on the notarial deed of this case against the plaintiff.

The notarial deed of this case is the notarial deed of this case.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원동부지원 2016.12.13 2016가단10850

-전주지방법원 2016.09.02 2015가단36756

-서울북부지방법원 2018.05.11 2017가단140807

-대전지방법원 2016.11.03 2015가단226219

-울산지방법원 2020.11.03 2019가단123822