(영문) 대전지방법원서산지원 2014.07.16 2013가단4977

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전지방법원서산지원 2014.07.16 2013가단4977

청구이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion did not have any monetary transaction with the defendant, and there was no fact that the plaintiff prepared the notarial deed of this case or made a power of attorney.

Since the non-party D prepared the notarial deed of this case with a certificate of personal seal impression issued by the plaintiff without the plaintiff's permission, compulsory execution based on the above notarial deed should be denied.

B. The defendant's assertion: (a) around five million won in 2008; (b) on November 26, 2008, the defendant lent to the plaintiff the notarial deed in this case by the power of attorney issued by the plaintiff; (c) on February 28, 2009, the defendant lent to the plaintiff the notarial deed in this case, respectively; and (d) on February 28, 2009, the notarial deed in this case was prepared by the power of attorney issued by the plaintiff.

2. (1) According to the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 of this case, witness F, D, written appraisal results, and inquiry reply, the fact that the notarial deed of this case was prepared with the purport that “the defendant lent 20 million won to the plaintiff on March 3, 2009 and repaid on July 3, 2009”, and the power of attorney attached to the notarial deed of this case (No. 2-1 evidence No. 2-1) can be recognized as having been written by the plaintiff, and there is no evidence to deem that the notarial deed of this case was forged.

(2) Although there was a circumstance that D did not deliver part of the amount to the Plaintiff, considering that the Plaintiff prepared and executed the power of attorney of the Notarial Deed on March 3, 2009, which was after deposit, and that there was a part of settlement between D and the Plaintiff through money transaction several times, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff is responsible for the entire amount, and that the Plaintiff prepared the Notarial Deed.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2018.09.11 2018가단20187

-서울남부지방법원 2016.01.29 2015가단23073

-서울서부지방법원 2011.12.27 2010가단43668

-수원지방법원성남지원 2019.04.11 2018가합1380