beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2014.08.13 2013가합9752

용역대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On December 1, 201, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff concluded a service agreement with the Defendant to provide consulting related to the purchase and sale brokerage of real estate, film museum contracts, and opening, and to receive KRW 433,200,00,00 for the service cost. Under the above agreement, the Plaintiff mediated the Defendant to purchase the instant building on the ground of the Daegu-gu Non-Party 1 (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Korea Securities Finance Corporation. The E film board was opened in the instant building, and the Defendant arranged the Defendant to receive loans from the Daegu Bank. On the other hand, the Plaintiff had the Defendant reduced the service cost to KRW 20,000,000 for the Defendant, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the service cost of KRW 20,000,000 for the reduced service cost and its delay damages.

2. On the ground that the Plaintiff entered into a service contract with the Defendant, the Plaintiff presented a service contract (Evidence A 1) and a power of attorney (Evidence A 3).

If the stamp image of the person signing the document affixed on his/her seal affixed on the document is reproduced by his/her seal, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the stamp image shall be presumed to have been formed, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person signing the document, and once presumed the authenticity of the stamp image, the authenticity of the entire document shall be presumed in accordance with Article 329 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, if it is proved that the act of affixing the seal was done by a person other than the person signing the document, the person signing the document shall be liable to prove the fact that the act of affixing the stamp is based on a legitimate title delegated by the person signing the document (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da41324, Jun. 30, 195), and there is a burden of proving that the above service contract and the power of attorney affixed the seal imprint to the defendant's corporation on the service contract as well as the power of attorney.