beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 25 million to C. However, on October 10, 2012, the Defendant prepared a substitute payment note (Evidence A No. 1; hereinafter “each of the instant notes”) to the effect that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 25 million to the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff by November 5, 2012. However, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 25 million and the damages for delay in accordance with the above notes.
Even if each of the instant notes was forged, C is entrusted by the Defendant with authority and affixed a seal imprint on each of the instant notes and delivered them to the Plaintiff. Since C is believed to have the right of representation with the Defendant’s seal imprint certificate and the seal imprint certificate, the Plaintiff believed that C had the right of representation. Therefore, the Defendant is liable for the expressive representation.
2. Determination
A. Reviewing whether the Defendant agreed to pay, the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the result of the completion appraisal by appraiser D in each of the instant statements are presumed to be the Defendant’s seal affixed to the Defendant’s name and the authenticity is presumed to be established, and the Defendant’s name, etc. stated in each of the instant statements are presumed to be the Defendant.
However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, witness E, and the purport of the entire testimony and arguments of the Plaintiff, are delivered to the Defendant at the time of the instant statement. At the time of the instant statement, C also stated that the Defendant was not identified as to whether or not the documents of this case were prepared, etc., and C requested to confirm only the Defendant as to his/her identity, but only the name was confirmed, and E did not confirm as to the granting of the power of representation or the lending of money. At the time of the delivery of each of the instant statements, E did not confirm the Defendant’s intent as to the contents of each of the instant statements of this case or whether or not the power of representation was granted.