beta
(영문) 대구지방법원포항지원 2019.01.18 2018가합10659

채무부존재확인

Text

1. A notary public’s C office against the Plaintiff on April 27, 2015 agreement on debt reimbursement of No. 622, 2015.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s mother, as the Plaintiff’s mother, borrowed a total of KRW 400 million around October 25, 2012 and KRW 500 million around May 20, 2013 (hereinafter “the instant loan”) from the Defendant, and made several monetary transactions with the Defendant.

B. When D continued to receive a demand for the repayment of the loan of this case from the Defendant, D had the Plaintiff’s seal impression affixed on April 16, 2015, and issued a certificate of the Plaintiff’s personal seal impression under the Plaintiff’s name on behalf of the Plaintiff on April 27, 2015. On the same day, D borrowed the amount of KRW 50 million from the Defendant on April 25, 2015 at the notary office’s office using the certificate of the Plaintiff’s personal seal impression and the power of attorney as above, and borrowed the amount of KRW 50 million from the Defendant on December 30, 2016 at the notary office’s office using the certificate of the Plaintiff’s personal seal impression prepared and the power of attorney, and repaid damages for delay by installments up to 25% until December 30, 2016. The Plaintiff agreed to guarantee the Defendant’s debt of this case by April 24, 2025.

C. Around May 2018, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Korea Coast Guard for the charge of forging private documents and uttering of a falsified investigation document, etc. D around the same year.

9. 4. The facts constituting a crime that “the Defendant borrowed KRW 500 million from the Defendant, forged a power of attorney on the joint and several surety under the Plaintiff’s name using the Plaintiff’s seal imprint, and submitted it to C to a notary public and exercised it,” and thus, received a summary order of KRW 7 million from the Daegu District Court Branch Branch of the Port of the Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court Branch Branch of Magu District Court Decision 2018 High Court Decision 2897), and the above summary order was finalized on the 21st of the same month.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1, 3, and 7 (including branch numbers), witness D's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

(a)the Parties;