beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.11.07 2016가단535728

양수금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Summary of the parties' assertion

A. On October 20, 201, the Defendant: (a) contracted the construction of a new house for KRW 310,000,000 on the ground of land (hereinafter referred to as “D land”; and (b) at the time between the Defendant and C, the contract form drafted between the Defendant and C is the evidence Nos. 1-1 and Party Nos. 4 (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract form”).

Since then C completed the above house, and on November 16, 2012, C did not pay the said construction cost even after the approval for use of the above house was obtained.

On July 2, 2016, the Plaintiff received KRW 200 million from C, and C notified the Defendant of the above transfer on July 4, 2016, and the notification reached the Defendant on July 5, 2016. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the above transfer amount to KRW 200 million and delay damages to the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant did not conclude a contract for construction work as alleged by C with the plaintiff, and the contract for construction work of this case submitted by the plaintiff was forged.

D Ground Housing was newly built by E and F, a corporation that received a contract for construction from the Defendant, and only the Defendant performed the interior work of the said housing.

Therefore, since there is no claim for the construction cost that the plaintiff acquired, it cannot comply with the plaintiff's claim.

2. Determination as to whether the contract of this case was prepared according to the defendant's intent

A. If the seal imprinted by his/her seal imprint affixed to the relevant legal principles, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the seal imprint is actually presumed to have been created, i.e., the act of affixing the seal based on the will of the person under whose name the signature was written, and once the authenticity of the seal is presumed to have been created, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been created (Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act). Such presumption is the person under whose name