(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.10.26 2017나19199

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) 서울고등법원 2017.10.26 2017나19199

양수금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. On January 21, 2015, the Defendant issued to C a promissory note, the face value of which is KRW 500 million, December 30, 2015, and each of the Incheon Metropolitan City in the place of issue and payment (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”). On the same day, a notary public drafted a notarial deed on the instant Promissory Notes (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”) with No. 14, 2015 as a certificate of Dhap Office.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was received from C the amount of KRW 350 million out of the instant promissory note bonds, as the repayment of the Plaintiff’s debt of KRW 100 million to C and the payment of investment funds for the business of the hospital. Since C’s assignment of claims was notified to the Defendant upon delegation from C, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 350 million and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that C did not transfer KRW 350 million to the Plaintiff out of the instant promissory note claim, and the claim transfer and takeover contract (Evidence A2) and the notice of the assignment of claims (Evidence A3) are forged.

3. First of all, we examine whether the instant contract for the transfer and takeover of claims (Evidence A2) and the notice of the transfer of claims (Evidence A3) are authentic.

If the stamp image of the person in whose name the document is affixed is affixed, unless there are special circumstances, it shall be presumed that the authenticity of the stamp image is created, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person in whose name the document is prepared, and once the authenticity of the stamp image is presumed, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed in accordance with Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, if it is found that the act of affixing the seal was done by a person other than the person in whose name the document is written, the document presenter is legitimate and delegated by the person in whose

참조조문

-민사소송법 제358조

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안양지원 2017.10.20 2016가합101124

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2015.06.09 2014가합263

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.24 2018나77540

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.29 2016나53434

-의정부지방법원 2016.03.25 2015가합1786