근저당권말소등기 등
1.In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation shall be modified as follows:
Plaintiff
A against the defendant of the A.
1. The reasons why this Court should explain this part of the basic facts are as follows: “The part of “, as shown below, 12, 13,” in Part 1 of Part 3 to Part 5 of Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance [the grounds for recognition] 2 of the part “as described below, 12, and 13,” and the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for each dismissal as described above, shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The part 1D et al. of the repair is necessary for the business of this case and requested the plaintiffs to complete the registration of the establishment of the neighboring real estate of this case, and the plaintiffs issued documents, such as the seal imprint, the seal imprint, and the registration certificate, to D et al. on April 23, 2012. The part 2 after the completion of the construction.
E. On September 5, 2012, Q’s employees obtained a certificate of seal impression for the authentication of Plaintiff A from Plaintiff A, etc., and issued a promissory note with the issuer A, D, J, face value of KRW 100,000,000,000,000 for each of the Defendant as the Defendant (hereinafter “instant promissory note”). On September 21, 2012, a notary public submitted a letter of delegation from Plaintiff A to the law firm TELS, and a notary public notarized the instant promissory note from TELS as 520,000,000.
(hereinafter referred to as the "notarial deed of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 10, 14 (including each number, if any, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 6 through 8, and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Determination on the part of the claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation
A. The plaintiff Gap asserted that since Eul et al. concluded the loan agreement of this case under the above plaintiff Eul's name without authority, the above plaintiff did not bear an obligation.
As to this, the defendant's loan contract of this case was concluded within the scope of the power of representation that D et al. comprehensively conferred by the plaintiff A, and even if so, it is.