logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.07 2016가단5180415
물품대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The grounds for the plaintiff's claim are as shown in the annexed sheet.

2. Determination

A. If, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the seal imprinted on a private document is presumed to be established, barring any special circumstance, if the seal imprinted on the private document’s seal imprinted by his/her seal, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been established pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. Once the authenticity of the seal imprinted is presumed to have been established, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been established pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. In other words, the presumption that the act of signing and sealing is attributable to the intent of the holder of the title deed is de facto presumed. Thus, if a person who contests the authenticity of the seal imprints the court

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da59122, Feb. 11, 2003).

Although there is no dispute between the parties that the stamp image affixed on the defendant's name at the bottom of the joint and several sureties (No. 2) of this case is based on the seal of the defendant, the above stamp image can be recognized as having been affixed by Nonparty D, who is the father of the defendant, in full view of the entries in No. 1 and witness C and the purport of the whole pleadings. Thus, the presumption of the authenticity of the part of the joint and several sureties of this case cannot be maintained as it is.

Furthermore, as to whether D had affixed the above seal with the authorization of the defendant, the following circumstances are revealed: ① at the time of the preparation of the joint and several surety of this case, the defendant was in the store at that time, and the customer was not at that time, so the plaintiff did not participate in the defendant even though he could explain the important contents of the joint and several surety agreement including the guaranteed amount, etc., and after confirming the intention of the guarantee, he could have the defendant write his own signature or affix his seal. On the other hand, the witness C reports only to the defendant.

arrow