logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 김천지원 2018.05.31 2017가단31360
청구이의
Text

1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiffs, No. 1155, 2012, which was 2012, signed on July 31, 2012.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 31, 2012, the Plaintiffs decided to take over a mobile phone sales store located in the Gu and Si/Gu (hereinafter “instant store”) from the Defendant, and paid KRW 50,000,000 for premiums.

B. On July 31, 2012, the Plaintiffs drafted a notarial deed of debt repayment contract No. 1155 of the 2012, No. 1155 of the 2012, a notary public, with the following contents as the Defendant, (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

The obligor of § 1 of the notarial deed of performance agreement approves that the obligor bears the obligation to the obligee and promises to pay the obligation under the provisions of this contract and approves the obligee's obligation:

1. Date on which a debt occurs: July 31, 2012: Sales price;

1. Debt amount: The repayment shall be made not later than March 31, 2013, when the period of repayment set forth in subparagraph 2 (the period and method of repayment) has expired;

(Method of Performance) Temporary payment

C. On July 31, 2012, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant drafted each of the following in relation to the payment of premium:

Until March 31, 2013, premium of KRW 50,000 shall be paid for the premium of KRW 50,000,000 which has not been paid when acquiring the store of this case.

Until March 31, 2013, the store of this case is re-acquisitionable to the defendant when it did not pay KRW 50,000,000 for premiums until March 31, 2013.

In other words, if a store is accepted to the defendant, authentication shall be null and void.

The defendant shall settle all of the penalty and cleanliness remaining in the communications store while operating the store of this case, and shall be null and void for KRW 50,000,000 in the Si's premium not to comply with it.

50,000,000 won shall be paid to Defendant E.

Based on the instant notarial deed, the Defendant received the order of seizure and collection against the Plaintiff B as the debtor, and as the third debtor, the Defendant collected KRW 6,820,227 of the Plaintiff’s deposit claim (Seoul District Court Decision 2017Ma1444, hereinafter “instant claim seizure and collection order”), and collected KRW 6,820,227 of the instant claim.

[Ground of recognition] dispute.

arrow