beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.28 2016가합11825

양수금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

The gist of the parties’ assertion is that the Plaintiff, via the Defendant’s agent C, transferred to the Defendant all rights to the “E” dental clinic (hereinafter “instant dental clinic”) located in the Incheon Bupyeong-gu D building (hereinafter “instant dental clinic”) at KRW 300 million. The Plaintiff entered into the instant contract for the transfer of dental clinic (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”) and transferred the instant dental clinic to the Defendant by entering into the instant contract for the transfer of dental clinic (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”) on March 16, 2015 (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”). As such, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the transfer price of KRW 300 million.

The Plaintiff merely received monthly payment from F or G (hereinafter “G, etc.”) that is the actual operating authority of the instant dental clinic, while taking charge of medical treatment at the instant dental clinic. As such, the Plaintiff was not the actual operating authority of the instant dental clinic.

The name of the defendant in the transfer contract of this case was forged, and the defendant did not conclude the transfer contract of this case with the plaintiff.

Judgment

In relation to Gap evidence No. 3 (the dental clinic transfer contract, and the transfer contract of this case) submitted by the plaintiff, there is no dispute between the parties that the stamp image next to the defendant's name is based on the seal of the defendant. However, since the defendant asserts that the transfer contract of this case does not have any authority to affix or delegate the seal to the defendant, the plaintiff asserts that Eul affixed the seal to the transfer contract of this case as the defendant's representative, but it is possible to consider the statement No. 1 and the witness's testimony as a whole, and then, it is consistent that Eul did not have concluded the transfer contract of this case on behalf of the defendant.