(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.12.23 2015가단221596

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) 부산지방법원 2015.12.23 2015가단221596

청구이의

Text

1. The defendant's three legal ethics against the plaintiff was prepared on June 24, 2004, No. 14043.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 24, 2004, the Plaintiff and the Defendant borrowed KRW 18,90,000 from the Defendant on December 5, 2003, and KRW 10,000 among them, the amount of KRW 10,00,00 on December 15, 2004 shall be repaid respectively on June 15, 2005; interest shall be paid at the rate of 24% per annum on June 15, 2005; however, when the Plaintiff delays the payment of the principal and interest on installment, an authentic deed of a money loan agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) stating “if the Plaintiff delays the payment of the principal and interest on installment, it shall lose the benefit of time and immediately repay the remainder of the debt amount.”

B. On May 7, 2015, the Defendant applied for a seizure and collection order as to the deposit claim against the Plaintiff’s national bank, etc. as the Busan District Court 2015TTT No. 11435, and was issued a seizure and collection order from the above court on May 18, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) prepared the notarial deed in this case by borrowing 10 million won as a prepaid bond in order to engage in commercial sex acts under the defendant's management. Since the above prepaid credit has expired by the extinctive prescription or is null and void in violation of good morals and other social order, the defendant cannot request the plaintiff to return it, and therefore, the defendant shall not be allowed to enforce compulsory execution based on the notarial deed in this case. 2) Accordingly, the defendant asserted that although the defendant had acted as a broker in the past, although the defendant had acted as a broker in the notarial deed in this case, the claim based on the notarial deed in this case remains without paying 8.9 million won out of it with the credit that occurred in the course of organizing and operating the notarial deed so that it can escape from the so-called so as soon as possible as possible by the plaintiff, such as the plaintiff, and it remains 8.9 million won.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2015.03.12 2013가단44246

-광주지방법원 2019.09.25 2019가단501084

-대구지방법원 2015.09.24 2014나20309

-전주지방법원 2015.11.12 2015가단6724

-대구지방법원 2007.7.6.선고 2005가단84775 판결