logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2014.10.16 2013가단508197
청구이의
Text

1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is a law firm No. 598 of 2012.

Reasons

1. The Defendant received a decision to commence auction by filing a respective application for auction with the issuer and B, the issuer and B, the date of issuance, sight payment, the place of payment, and the place of payment, respectively, of the Incheon Metropolitan City, and with respect to a notarial deed as to a promissory note with the face value of KRW 50 million for the addressee (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) as its executive title (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”), respectively, as the title of the issuer and B, and the issuer and the issuer B, and the issuer and the issuer C, and the Suwon District Court A, and the Suwon District Court A, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap-5 evidence, Gap-7 evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff did not issue the Promissory Notes or commission the preparation of the Notarial Deed, and there is no device that delegated B with the issuance or commission of the Promissory Notes to B as its agent. The Notarial Deed of this case is based on forged promissory Notes and the power of attorney using the Plaintiff’s seal imprint, etc., and its preparation was entrusted by an unauthorized agent, and there is no validity as to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant’s compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case should be denied.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Plaintiff comprehensively entrusted the establishment and operation of E, the Plaintiff’s representative, and the instant notarial deed was made by borrowing funds necessary for the establishment of the said E’s franchise store from the Defendant. As such, the Plaintiff is deemed to have granted the right of representation to B regarding the issuance of the Promissory Notes and the commission of the preparation of the authentic deed. Thus, the instant notarial deed is valid in relation to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. Whether the Plaintiff granted the power of representation as to the issuance of promissory notes in this case and the commission to prepare a notarial deed to B or not, the indication of the recognition of execution allowing the Plaintiff to have executory power as an executory title.

arrow