1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the assertion that the defendant added or emphasized in the trial by the court of first instance is identical to the statement of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except as otherwise determined in paragraph (2) below. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The allegation that E obtained the seal imprint and the seal imprint certificate from 22 insurance solicitors, including the plaintiff, from I and affixed the seal imprint to the letter of delegation of the defendant's representative director M, and attached the above seal imprint to the above letter of delegation.

Since M received the power of attorney in this case from E and completed the notarial deed of this case on its basis, the above notarial deed was legitimately prepared upon delegation from the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion seeking non-permission of compulsory execution based on the above notarial deed is unreasonable.

B. If, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the signature-keeping’s seal affixed to the signature-keeping’s seal affixed to the relevant legal principles is de facto presumed to be based on the will of the person in whose name the signature is written, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established if the authenticity of the seal is presumed to have been established. However, such presumption is broken if it is revealed that the act of affixing the seal was conducted by a person other than the person in whose name the signature was written, so the person in whose name the document was written, is liable to prove that the act of affixing the seal

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37831 Decided September 24, 2009 and Supreme Court Decision 2002Da69686 Decided April 8, 2003, etc.).

Judgment

There is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff did not directly affix his seal imprint on the letter of delegation of this case.

(q) it;