청구이의
1. The Defendant’s certificate of the preparation of C Office by a notary public against the Plaintiff, No. 55 of 2016.
1. On March 10, 2016, when borrowing money from the Defendant who engages in credit business, D delayed repayment of the borrowed money on the agreed date, and upon the Defendant’s request, D made payment of the borrowed amount of KRW 26 million by May 8, 2016 with the Defendant, the Defendant, and the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff, and made a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement as stated in paragraph (1) of the main text that recognizes compulsory execution if the obligation is not fulfilled (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).
D prepared the Notarial Deed as an agent of the Plaintiff, and submitted a power of attorney in the name of the Plaintiff to verify the power of attorney (hereinafter referred to as “the power of attorney of this case”).
On April 24, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against D with suspicion of forging private documents, etc. D, and D had received a summary order (this Court approximately approximately 2017 High Court Decision 1635) from this Court on April 24, 2017, which was recognized as constituting the crime of forging private documents, and committing the crime of uttering of the said private documents, and the said summary order became final and conclusive as it is.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence A1 to 11, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. Even if a civil trial in a judgment on the cause of a claim is not bound by the finding of facts in a criminal trial, the facts found guilty of the same facts are valuable evidence, and thus, it cannot be acknowledged that the facts against the judgment of facts in a criminal trial cannot be adopted in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial unless there are special circumstances where it is difficult to adopt the judgment of facts in a criminal trial
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da24276, Sept. 30, 1997). According to the above basic facts, this case’s authentic deed is null and void by an act of unauthorized representation without the Plaintiff’s delegation. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it is based on this.