위약금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
In light of the above legal principles, as seen earlier, the Defendant’s certificate No. 6 (hereinafter “instant contract”) asserts that the Defendant forged the Defendant’s stamp image on the instant contract. As to the authenticity of the instant contract, the Defendant printed the Defendant’s stamp image on the instant contract, and on the 3rd end of the instant contract, the Defendant affixed the Defendant’s stamp image on the following: “Seoul City, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Seoul, as the HHro 306 (former 706-1), and the Defendant’s stamp image on the following:
F However, according to the statement No. 6, the fact-finding results of the first instance court's fact-finding, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the seal impression of the defendant corporate body, which was used at the time of the preparation of the contract for the sale of each of the units of the building of this case, is as follows. The defendant's seal in the contract of this case is different in that the defendant's seal in the contract of this case includes not only the pen body of "representative director" and "Korean Asset Trust Co., Ltd." but also the "*" on the side of "Korea Asset Trust Co., Ltd.", and it is reasonable to view that the defendant's seal indicated in the contract of this case is not affixed by the defendant corporate seal impression, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the contract of this case.
F) If so, in light of the following circumstances, the instant contract cannot be used as evidence, and it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the sales contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with respect to No. 308 of the instant building solely on the statement of No. 1 and No. 11 and the testimony of a witness G at the trial and the testimony of a witness G at the trial, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the sales contract of this case was effective is without merit.
As long as the contract for sale cannot be acknowledged between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, the defendant applies to the plaintiff.