(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.11.15 2017가단530478

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) 수원지방법원 2018.11.15 2017가단530478

청구이의

Text

1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is on the authentic deed of promissory notes No. 589, No. 2014.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 10, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) that included the following special terms and conditions (hereinafter “instant special terms and conditions”) regarding the lessor, the Plaintiff, the lessee, the Defendant, the lease deposit amount of KRW 85 million, and the lease term from May 4, 2014 to May 3, 2016.

[Matters of Special Agreement]

1. The above apartment is a contract in which both parties are aware of the fact that the apartment is a public rental apartment of the ELS Corporation, but the sub-lease is not given by the Corporation, and the lessee is an active cooperation key in the actual condition.

2. No lessee shall make a move-in report and a fixed date;

3. The amount equivalent to deposit money shall be notarized by promissory notes, and in this case, 50% of the expenses shall be borne respectively.

B. On May 4, 2014, the Plaintiff issued, on May 4, 2014, a promissory note with a face value of KRW 85 million, the date of issuance, May 4, 2014, which is payable at sight, the payee, the Defendant, the place of issuance, the place of payment, and the place of payment, respectively (hereinafter “instant promissory note”). On May 19, 2014, the Plaintiff, along with the instant promissory note, prepared and issued a notarial deed with a content that, even if a notary public delays the payment of the said note under Article 589 of the Effective Deed, he/she did not object to compulsory execution (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (A) is sufficient to conclude the instant lease agreement with the Defendant.

However, the actual lessor of the instant lease agreement is D, and the Plaintiff is merely a person who lent the name of the lessor to D, and there is no fact that the Plaintiff received KRW 85 million from the Defendant, the lessee.

The reason why the Plaintiff issued the Promissory Notes to the Defendant and prepared the Notarial Deed is sufficient.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2014.04.08 2013가단16591

-광주지방법원 2015.04.17 2014나4541

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.23 2015가단192812

-서울북부지방법원 2016.06.16 2015가합742

-수원지방법원 2018.05.04 2016가단550604