(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.09.07 2017가단30237

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) 수원지방법원 2018.09.07 2017가단30237

청구이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 2 and the entire pleadings, it is recognized that a promissory note No. 2 (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) was written to the effect that the Defendant, as the Plaintiff’s agent, entrusted a notary public D with the preparation of a notarial deed on August 16, 2017, and consented to the immediate compulsory execution of a promissory note as of June 8, 2017 (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with respect to the issuer, the payee, the Defendant, and the face value KRW 6 million, and the issue date.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff did not grant the right of representation to the defendant to prepare the notarial deed of this case, and therefore, the notarial deed of this case is invalid.

B. According to the following circumstances, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) appears to have passed only around the Plaintiff’s office on June 14, 2017, the date of issuance of the Promissory Notes; (b) as to the Plaintiff’s signature on the part of the Plaintiff’s signature on the Promissory Notes; (c) as to the Plaintiff’s signature on the Promissory Notes, some similaritys between the Plaintiff’s signature on the Promissory Notes and the Plaintiff’s ordinary body; and (d) as to the Plaintiff’s signature on the part of the Promissory Notes, the Plaintiff and the Defendant sent text messages to the Defendant around the Plaintiff’s office on June 14, 2017, the date of issuance of the Promissory Notes; and (b) as to the Plaintiff’s signature on the Promissory Notes. However, according to the results of the said appraisal, the Plaintiff’s right of representation was valid, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff’s signature on the Promissory Notes in this case and the Plaintiff’s ordinary body on the part of the Plaintiff’s body.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2015.11.26 2015가단6452

-의정부지방법원 2017.11.30 2016가단123488

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.01.24 2017가단15744

-대구지방법원김천지원 2014.03.19 2013가단5677

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.01.24 2017가단12464