(영문) 전주지방법원 2016.11.04 2015나8851 | 리걸엔진

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) 전주지방법원 2016.11.04 2015나8851

청구이의

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (1) of the same part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff either prepared the instant notarial deed or delegated the preparation thereof to the Defendant, and that there is no debt to the Defendant of the non-party company. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed should be denied.

B. The defendant's summary of the defendant's assertion was paid KRW 70 million from the non-party company as agreed money, and the plaintiff and D jointly and severally guaranteed by the plaintiff and D. Since the defendant, after being delegated with the letter of delegation from the plaintiff, prepared it and entrusted the preparation of the notarial deed of this case, it is valid.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case should be permitted.

3. Determination

A. The indication of recognition and recognition of execution that a notarial deed allows a notary public to have an executory power as an executory power is an act of litigation against a notary public, so in case where a notarial deed is prepared by a commission of an unauthorized representative, there is no effect as an executory power, and the burden of proving that there is an authority to prepare such notarial deed is an executory power, among the notarial deeds, a creditor who asserts its effect, and the authenticity of the portion directly prepared by a notary public among the notarial deeds is presumed to have been created, but the facts that can be acknowledged by it are presumed

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da18114, Jun. 28, 2002). In addition, the seal imprint and the seal imprint are nothing more than one material that can recognize the power of representation, and thus, they enter into a joint and several surety contract for a money loan or prepare a notarial deed for the said contract.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2020.02.05 2019나71394

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2015.10.27 2015가단30526

-대전지방법원 2018.12.19 2018나103288

-광주지방법원 2020.04.02 2019가단20189