logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.04.03 2014가단245240
청구이의
Text

1. No. 1471, Sept. 29, 201, the Defendant’s Office of Certified Public Accountants and Joint Law (Law Office) against the Plaintiff was dated September 29, 2011.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 29, 2011, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note with a face value of KRW 50,000,000 for the payee, the Defendant, and the face value of KRW 50,000, and drafted a notarial deed stating the purport of the claim that recognizes compulsory execution.

B. The above notarial deed was prepared to guarantee the payment of the subscription money to the number of the Plaintiff’s membership.

On May 201, the Plaintiff joined the phone number system, which is the main owner of the Plaintiff, and received KRW 4.6 million out of KRW 50 million in three times.

C. However, the Plaintiff paid 4.2 million won each of the 1 and 2 installments. However, 1.7 million won each of the 3rd installments and 5.0 million won each of the 5 million installments (9 times each time until the completion of the contract).

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap 5, 10, Eul 1, 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that, after lending money to C and D, he joined the above serial System on his recommendation, C et al. paid in lieu of repayment to the Plaintiff, C et al. was also set up up a collateral security in the name of E with regard to this, and the Plaintiff, taking into account that there was a claim to receive KRW 55,100,000 from C, up to 20,000,000 won (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2014M307) and therefore, there was no obligation under the above authentic deed.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the statement in Gap 8 and 9 alone made the defendant to receive a mutual aid payment from non-Plaintiff C, etc., and there is no other evidence to prove that Eul, etc. paid a mutual aid payment on behalf of the defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is not accepted.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s total amount of debt related to the above notarial deed is 41.9 million won [4 million won (3.0 million won) 45 million won (5 million won x 9.) - 1.7 million won (1.7 million won (amount paid to the Plaintiff) - 5.4 million won (amount not paid by the Plaintiff)]. Thus, the above notarial deed’s executory power of debt is the above amount of debt.

arrow