(영문) 대전고등법원 2016.04.06 2015나13285

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) 대전고등법원 2016.04.06 2015나13285

청구이의

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. Until this judgment has become final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for adding the same content as that of paragraph (2) between the 5th and 14th of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the ten-year civil extinctive prescription should be applied inasmuch as the Plaintiff A’s obligation for the cause of each of the instant notarial deeds is actually a loan obligation borrowed individually from the Defendant.

In light of the above facts, even if, as alleged by the defendant, the plaintiff Gap borrowed KRW 300 million from the defendant for the purpose of raising funds for personal use, and failed to repay the borrowed amount, and thereby the plaintiff Gap prepared the No. 1 No. 1 No. 1 notarial deed as to the total amount of the borrowed amount of KRW 450 million not paid until April 14, 2005, the No. 1 notarial deed of this case contains the following contents: "The defendant lent the debtor to E fishery partnership corporation, and if the E fishery partnership corporation fails to repay this amount, it shall be acknowledged that there is no objection even if compulsory execution is conducted immediately." Thus, the E fisheries partnership of this case shall prepare the No. 1 notarial deed of this case, thereby making it possible for the plaintiff Gap to accept the existing loan obligation to the defendant of this case, or to conclude the loan obligation of the plaintiff Gap to the defendant, and as long as the E fisheries partnership bears an obligation of KRW 450 million to the defendant for new commercial activity, it shall not be deemed that the E partnership bears an obligation for new commercial activity.

In addition, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 8-2, Gap evidence 9-1, 2, and .

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2016.03.31 2015가합1462

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.11.13 2018가합97

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.16 2015가단111172

-서울동부지방법원 2020.06.12 2019나27453

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2014.07.17 2014고단399