(영문) 대구고등법원 2015.07.02 2014나4898 | 리걸엔진

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) 대구고등법원 2015.07.02 2014나4898

청구이의

Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A notary public against the plaintiff is a law firm.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. C around March 2, 2009, around KRW 130 million (hereinafter “instant loan”) was lent to the Plaintiff at KRW 30 million per annum and at KRW 30 million per annum.

However, with respect to the instant loans on March 2, 2009 between the Plaintiff and C, the Plaintiff approved that “the Plaintiff bears the principal amount of KRW 200 million against C, the due date for payment of the principal amount of KRW 200,000, September 2, 2009, interest and delay damages at 49% per annum.”

In the event that the plaintiff does not discharge his obligation, C does not have any objection even if compulsory execution is enforced against the obligation.

“The instant No. 3 was drawn up. B. On April 2, 2009, the Plaintiff repaid to C the amount of KRW 5.3 million out of the principal and interest of the instant loan, and KRW 10.6 million in total (hereinafter “the instant loan”). (c) On July 28, 2010, the Defendant received the instant loan claim against C from C on the ground that he/she acquired the instant loan claim from C on the ground that he/she, he/she acquired the instant loan claim from the legal office, but was granted by the legal office the execution clause on the instant notarial deed. (d) On June 17, 2010, the Defendant applied for the compulsory auction from Daegu District Court for KRW 1.3 million interest and its interest and KRW 105,000,000,000 from May 2, 2009 to KRW 1.306,000 (hereinafter “the instant loan”).

E) The Defendant received dividends. On May 23, 2013, the Defendant applied for the seizure and collection order (Seoul District Court 2013TTTTTTTTTTTTTTA) regarding the Plaintiff’s claim against the Kuluri Livestock Livestock Industry Cooperatives, and received a seizure and collection order on June 17, 2013. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, and Party A Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, and Party B Nos. 7 and 8 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion that "the actual borrower of the loan of this case is not C but C, and also C and C.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원김천지원 2014.10.24 2013가합1948

-인천지방법원 2015.09.04 2014가단68982

-전주지방법원 2020.09.09 2019가단21806

-서울북부지방법원 2015.12.18 2015가단35482

-의정부지방법원 2015.09.11 2014가합7800