진료확인서 허위확인 및 이행의 소
1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation in the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed, respectively.
2. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) are filed.
1. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the defendant prepared a false medical certificate of this case and submitted it to an insurance company, so the designated parties D did not receive KRW 10,000,000 insurance money from the insurance company.
Accordingly, the designated parties complained against the suppression of the Japan's National Promotion Headquarters, and the result was confirmed by the plaintiffs.
Since the plaintiffs' daily allowances are KRW 100,000, the five days have occurred in identifying the facts of the case, and the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiffs damages for delay on each of the above amounts.
In addition, since the defendant prepared a false medical certificate, D did not receive 10,000,000 insurance money, and thereby suffered mental damage.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 11,00,000 won in total and 100,000 won in compensation for damages for delay to the Appointors D.
2. Determination
A. Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The lawsuit for confirmation may also be instituted in order to determine whether or not the document verifying the legal relationship is authentic” with respect to the claim for confirmation, the document that is the object of the lawsuit to confirm the authenticity of the deed is the document directly proving the legal relationship, and the “document proving the legal relationship” refers to the document that can directly prove the existence of a specific legal relationship from the content of the statement.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da53714 Decided December 14, 2001, etc.). Also, since the lawsuit for confirmation of document authenticity concerns whether the document solely proves the right or legal relation was prepared by the person under whose name the document was prepared, the lawsuit for confirmation as to whether the contents written therein are consistent with the objective truth is not allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu4710, Feb. 14, 1989).