약정금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On December 30, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant prepared to the Plaintiff a written confirmation of the balance of the credit account sales obligation of KRW 453,498,120 (the evidence No. 1 of this case; hereinafter “instant confirmation”) as of December 30, 2016, and prepared a written confirmation of the balance of KRW 70,203,547 as of April 4, 2017 (the evidence No. 2 of this case; hereinafter “instant confirmation No. 2”) with the content that the account receivables amount to KRW 70,203,547 as of April 4, 2017.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the account receivable amounting to KRW 523,701,667 (=453,498,120 Won 70,203,547) and damages for delay as stated in the purport of the claim.
2. Determination
A. We examine the case. The defendant representative director C alleged that "D's representative DNA forged the certificate No. 1 of this case and submitted it as evidence at the time of filing the instant lawsuit." D's complaint was filed against the charge of forging private documents, uttering of a falsified investigation document, or attempted fraud. However, the prosecutor of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office (No. 82545 of March 6, 2018) issued a disposition without suspicion (Evidence of Evidence) (No. 82545 of March 6, 2019) is not a dispute between the parties.
(b) However, the same value as the final and conclusive criminal judgment cannot be given to the prosecutor's disposition of suspicion, and the court may find facts posted by free evaluation of evidence.
In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that each of the instant certificates did not have sufficient formal evidence to acknowledge the credit account receivable claims asserted by the Plaintiff, in view of the following circumstances, which can be known by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the entries in the evidence Nos. 3 through 10, 23 through 26, 1995 (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da2184, Dec. 26, 195). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
1. Regarding the preparation process of the first written confirmation of this case, the plaintiff prepared a written confirmation by the plaintiff in the above criminal case and sent it by facsimile to the defendant, and the defendant confirmed the balance and affixed the seal of the defendant.