beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
argument and Judgment
A. On June 13, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the lease of automobile facilities (hereinafter “instant contract”) with Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”). Defendant D, the representative of the Defendant Co., Ltd., jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant Co., Ltd’s obligation to the Plaintiff.
From May 24, 2018, Defendant Company did not pay rent from May 24, 2018, and the Plaintiff terminated the instant contract. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff rent and delayed damages, such as the written order.
B. If a document’s seal affixed to a private document is affixed with his seal affixed to it, barring special circumstances, it is presumed that the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person in whose name the document was written. On the other hand, if the authenticity of the seal is presumed to be established, the document’s authenticity is presumed to be established pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act, unless there are special circumstances. However, the above presumption is broken if it is revealed that the act of affixing the seal was conducted by a person other than the person in whose name the document was written, or that it was made without the intention of the person in whose name the document was written, or against the will of the person in whose name the document was written, or if it is proved that the act of affixing the seal was made without the intention of the person in whose name the document was written, the document presenter is liable to prove that the act of affixing the seal was based on the legitimate title delegated by the person in whose name the document was written (Supreme Court Decision 200Da56068 Decided May 29, 2001).
I would like to say.
In addition, only each description of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 11 has the authority to act for the defendants.
It is not enough to recognize it.