(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.04.30 2014가단64348

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) 인천지방법원 2015.04.30 2014가단64348

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2013, C presented to the Plaintiff a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the lessor E, lessee C, and lessee deposit KRW 240 million with respect to the Seongbuk-gu Seoul and 102 Dong 903 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and requested the lessor to lend money with the lessor E to guarantee the return of the loan.

B. Accordingly, on May 24, 2013, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant’s notarial office with a person referred to as C and E, and then, as a notary public in the name of the attorney-at-law in charge of authentication-at-law in charge of authentication, signed a promissory note No. 295 on March 23, 2014 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the issuer C, E, the payee, the Plaintiff, the face value of KRW 80,000,000 and lent KRW 50,000 to C.

C. After that, in the course of the Plaintiff seeking repayment against E by delaying the return of the loan by C, the instant lease agreement in the name of E was forged, and on May 24, 2013, the fact that the Plaintiff was a third party who visited the Defendant’s notarial office and misrepresented E was revealed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant-at-law in charge of the authentication of the defendant-at-law in charge of the authentication of the defendant-at-law was negligent in performing his duty to verify the identity of the defendant-at-law in relation to the defendant-at-law in charge of the authentication of this case, and that the plaintiff lent the money believed that the plaintiff

A notary public shall know the name of the client and be acquainted with him before preparing a deed, and if he knows the name of the client or is not acquainted with him, he shall have the client produce a resident registration certificate or a certificate issued by a competent administrative agency with a photograph attached thereto, or shall have two witnesses whose names are known to and who are acquainted with, the notary public prove that the client is not superior to himself, or shall have any other person.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안산지원 2019.01.09 2017가단66193

-서울동부지방법원 2015.03.03 2013가단124443

-서울중앙지법 2005. 10. 7. 선고 2004가합94155 판결

-서울북부지방법원 2016.09.29 2016가합20903

-대전지방법원 홍성지원 2020.02.11 2019고단892