(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2015.04.30 2014가단14681

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) 인천지방법원부천지원 2015.04.30 2014가단14681

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Reasons

1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s assertion

A. On November 9, 2007, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) entered into each loan contract with the Defendant with each of the amount of KRW 20,000,000,000, and received a total of KRW 40,000,000. On the same day, the appointed party entered into each loan contract with the Defendant with each of the Defendant with each of the amount of KRW 20,000,000,000, and received a total of KRW 30,000,00.

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the loans of this case”). (b)

On November 7, 2007, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of a mortgage”) consisting of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the maximum debt amount of KRW 52,00,000,000 with respect to the Seocheon-gu C apartment 101, 1502 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul, Seoul, with a view to securing the obligation of each of the above loans.

C. Each of the above loans contract concluded with D, the actual owner of the real estate of this case, lent only the name of the plaintiff (appointed party) and the representative, and D sold the real estate of this case to E around August 1, 2008, and around that time, D repaid the above loans to F, an employee of the defendant, with all of the above sales amount.

Since each of the loans of this case is repaid, the absence of each of the loans of this case is confirmed.

2. According to the records in Gap's evidence No. 1, it can be acknowledged that the registration of creation of a mortgage of each of the instant loans was cancelled on August 1, 2008, but the above recognition alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated party have repaid all of the loans of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

3. If so, the plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2016.07.21 2015나8353

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.30 2014나36497

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.10 2018가합513332

-춘천지방법원 2015.05.07 2014가단5800

-수원지방법원 2019.07.24 2019가합10609