logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.04.30 2018나60120
청구이의
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The following facts of recognition are acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the purpose of the entire pleadings, either in Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2:

A. On March 9, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to take over all of the rights to lease and internal facilities of the ran tavern located in Suwon-si D from the Defendant for KRW 35 million (hereinafter “instant transfer and acquisition contract”), and around that time, paid KRW 6 million to the Defendant as down payment.

B. On March 9, 2015, the Plaintiff issued and delivered a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) to the Defendant, which was written to the Defendant as “as of March 9, 2015 on the issue date, the par value of KRW 29 million, the payment date of KRW 30,000 on December 30, 2015, the place of issuance, the place of payment, and the place of payment, respectively,” for the payment of the balance of the transfer price of KRW 29,00,000.

No. 78 of 2015, No. 2015, No. 78, a notary public made a notarial deed on the Promissory Notes.

(2) At the time of the Plaintiff’s transfer/acquisition agreement, the Plaintiff issued and delivered the instant promissory note to the Defendant by December 30, 2015. The Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 22,450,000 to the Defendant from March 2015 to July 2016. Around April 2015, the Defendant stolen a machine of KRW 10,000,000,000, the market price of the Plaintiff owned by the Plaintiff, and thus, there was a damage claim equivalent to KRW 10,000 against the Plaintiff. Accordingly, if the Plaintiff offsets the Defendant’s claim against the transfer price against the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff was entirely extinguished.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of the Promissory Notes of this case shall not be permitted.

3. Determination

A. Temporary remittance from the No. 1,000,000 on March 5, 2015 No. 1, 200,000 on September 25, 2013, 200 on September 25, 2015, 200 on March 16, 2015, 60,000 on October 60, 200,003 on April 2, 2015, 2015.

arrow