logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.08.31 2017나204897
청구이의
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion does not have granted C the power of attorney to prepare the notarial deed of this case. Thus, the notarial deed of this case is null and void by the commission of an unauthorized representative.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the defendant's above notarial deed is not allowed.

B. As the Plaintiff alleged by the Defendant granted C the right to represent the preparation of the instant notarial deed by issuing a certificate of personal seal impression, seal imprint, etc., the said notarial deed prepared by C as the Plaintiff’s representative is valid.

3. Determination: The indication of the recognition of execution, which allows a notarial deed to have executory power as an executory title, is an act of litigation against a notary public, and thus, when a notarial deed has been prepared by a commission of an unauthorized representative, it shall not be effective as an executory title.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da2803, Mar. 24, 2006). The burden of proving the existence of the right of representation in the preparation of a notarial deed is to the creditor who asserts its effect. The establishment of the authenticity of the portion directly produced by a notary public of a notarial deed is presumed, but it is presumed that the fact that it can be recognized by the fact is merely a commission of the preparation of a notarial deed to the agent and that the agent has a legitimate right of representation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da42047, Feb. 22, 1994). In light of the above legal principles, we examine whether the Plaintiff granted C the right of representation to prepare the Notarial Deed.

Based on the above facts, each of the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence No. 1-2, Eul evidence No. 1-2, Eul evidence No. 1-2, 3 through 7, 11, 15, and 16 (including various numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

arrow