(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.02.02 2015가단19846

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.02.02 2015가단19846

청구이의

Text

1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff was drafted on September 27, 2013 by the General Law Office in the 21st century.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence No. 4, the defendant on September 27, 2013, which was written by the creditor, the plaintiff, the debtor, and the notary public who made Eul as joint and several sureties, on September 27, 2013, the No. 1422 of the Statement No. 1422 dated September 27, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "No. notarial deed of this case"), and its main contents are as follows.

Article 1 (Purpose) The creditor lent KRW 23,500,000 to the debtor on September 27, 2013, and the debtor borrowed it.

Article 2 (Period and Method of Performance) Debtors shall repay to September 27, 2014.

Article 9 (Recognition and Recognition of Compulsory Execution) When an obligor and a joint guarantor fail to perform a pecuniary obligation under this contract, they recognized the absence of objection immediately from the obligee even if compulsory execution has been effected.

A notary public has read and perused this deed to the defendant, the plaintiff, and C, and the above client recognized that there is no objection to the content of this deed, and signed and sealed it.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the notarial deed of this case is not lawfully prepared at his own will.

In full view of the statements as set forth in No. 1, No. 3 and No. 4, and the testimony of the witness C, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff did not directly affix the seals on the notarial deed of this case after allowing the Plaintiff to peruse the contents of the notarial deed of this case and approving that there was no objection.

(A) The court below held that the Plaintiff did not directly affix his seal to the notarial deed of this case, and held that only the Plaintiff’s stamp image is different from the Plaintiff’s stamp image on the notarial deed of this case in case of the notarial deed prepared by the same notary public on September 16, 2013, which was before the notarial deed of this case was prepared by the same parties. Further, each of the descriptions of Nos. 1, 2, and 5-1, 2-2, and 5-2, as at the time of preparation of the notarial deed of this

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2020.06.19 2018가단10590

-울산지방법원 2020.11.03 2019가단123822

-서울북부지방법원 2013.08.14 2011가합9802

-광주지방법원 2015.10.28 2015나1969

-광주지방법원 2016.09.20 2015가단524607