채무부존재확인
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiffs and E, who are salespersons of door-to-door sales companies, borrowed money from the defendant to use it as funds for the promotion of multi-level sales.
B. The Plaintiffs, with the obligor as the Plaintiffs, formulated a power of attorney to delegate all the powers to E to commission the preparation of a notarial deed from the Defendant to borrow KRW 50,000,000 from the Defendant.
C. On August 10, 2018, with the commission of the Defendant and E representing the Plaintiffs, a notary public, which read that “the Defendant lent KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiffs on August 9, 2018, and the Plaintiffs borrow this,” drafted a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement No. 290 of the document No. 2018, August 9, 2019 (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).
On August 10, 2018, the Defendant deposited KRW 35,000,000 among the loans to Plaintiff B’s account, and the remaining loans KRW 15,000,000 were to be substituted by the Defendant’s existing loans to E.
E. The Plaintiffs accused that E forged the instant notarial deed and acquired it by borrowing KRW 50,000,000. However, on December 16, 2019, the Plaintiffs were sentenced to a disposition of false evidence (defluence of evidence).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiffs asserted that E merely intended to guarantee the Defendant’s obligation to the Defendant, and that E had not granted the power of attorney to prepare a notarial deed with the Defendant as the Plaintiffs, and that E arbitrarily prepared the notarial deed using the Plaintiffs’ seal and identification card, and therefore, there is no obligation based on the notarial deed.
According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 4, since it is recognized that the seal affixed to the power of attorney for the preparation of the notarial deed of this case was by the seal of the plaintiffs, the above power of attorney is presumed to have been duly formed, while the above power of attorney was prepared by the intent of the plaintiffs.