logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.04.21 2016가단214541
청구이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, on February 11, 2014, made a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement (No. 865, 2014, hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) stating that “The Defendant, on February 11, 2014, set the Plaintiff a maturity of KRW 60 million at KRW 5% per annum, interest rate of KRW 5% per annum, and delay damages at 10% per annum, and if the Plaintiff fails to perform the said monetary obligation, he/she shall immediately recognize that there is no objection even if compulsory execution is performed.” There is no dispute between the parties.

2. The Plaintiff asserted that from September 2007, the Plaintiff operated a health club (hereinafter “instant health club”) with the trade name “F” located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon by investing money with Defendant and Nonparty D (hereinafter “F”). While the said health club was not operated well and the amount of investment was not recovered properly, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant’s wife to prepare and prepare the instant notarial deed around February 2014 to certify that the Defendant’s wife invested in the said health club.

Therefore, since there is no actual monetary loan contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the instant notarial deed is null and void, and the Plaintiff prepared the instant notarial deed without the intent to pay a monetary loan obligation to the Defendant, and the Defendant knew or could have known such intent of the Plaintiff, which constitutes the proviso of Article 107(1) of the Civil Act, and thus, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed is not allowed.

3. In full view of the facts stated in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 8, and the witness D's testimony, the plaintiff, defendant, and D will operate the instant health club on or around September 2007. The plaintiff paid KRW 54 million to the plaintiff, the defendant, and D with the operating cost of the above health club, KRW 60 million to the defendant, and KRW 86 million to the above health club. The operation of the above health club was mainly entrusted to the plaintiff, who is a health radar, and D operated.

arrow