logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.24 2015가단5089928
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Defendant C’s each of the KRW 40 million to Plaintiff A and B, and 5% per annum from July 5, 2012 to November 24, 2016, respectively.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant C, as a principal agent of an Internet lending company, offered F apartment Nos. 203, 301 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as security and received a loan.

B. At the office of G on June 14, 2012, Defendant C drafted a loan contract, loan certificate, loan certificate, etc. to borrow money with the amount of KRW 80,000,000,000,000,000,000 as debtor C, joint and several sureties, E, and the agreed interest rate of 30% per annum. On the same day, Defendant C drafted a power of proxy for registration of creation of a collateral to provide the instant real estate as security for

C. Defendant D, a certified judicial scrivener entrusted the registration of the establishment of a mortgage in accordance with the above mortgage contract, applied for the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the instant real estate based on the delegation from Defendant C’s name, etc., and completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the instant real estate”) on June 14, 2012 by the king Branch of Suwon District Court (14279, Jun. 15, 2012) (hereinafter “the registration office of the establishment of a mortgage”).

By July 4, 2012, H transferred all of the financial transactions accounts in the name of one bank in the name of E to KRW 80 million.

E. E filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiffs seeking the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage by the Suwon District Court Branch Branch No. 2013Kadan8999, and the said court rendered a judgment accepting the claim of E on October 29, 2014 on the ground that the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage was completed irrespective of the intention of E, and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

F. Meanwhile, even though Defendant C did not have been authorized by E with respect to the registration of the establishment of the instant relocation, it is issued as an agent a certificate of the personal seal impression in the name of E, and the seal impression of E is affixed.

arrow