beta
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 parties' assertion
A. On July 201, 201, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s mother C filed a complaint with the 13,000,000 won for larceny, and the Defendant agreed to reimburse the Plaintiff not later than July 30, 201 in the course of the agreement regarding the instant case, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 13,00,000,000 and delay damages.
B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant's mother as the title transfer of the vehicle affixes his seal on the proxy form for issuing the defendant's certificate of personal seal impression to C, and has a copy of the seal and identification card, and there is no fact that the defendant's mother as the defendant's mother has written his own seal or
2. Determination
A. According to each description of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to whether the authenticity of Gap evidence No. 1 (each note) is established, the fact that the seal affixed to Gap evidence No. 1 (each note) is the same as the seal affixed to Gap evidence No. 2 (Certificate of Seal Imprint).
However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of entry and the entire pleading as stated in the evidence No. 2, namely, ① the Plaintiff asserted as a policeman on July 201 the preparation date of each letter (Evidence No. 1) attached to each letter, the issuance date of the Defendant’s certificate of personal seal impression (Evidence No. 2) attached to each letter is the same as January 31, 201, the Defendant’s certificate of personal seal impression (Evidence No. 2) was much earlier than that, and the use is the blank, not the issuance of the certificate, and the Plaintiff’s mother issued each letter with the seal already affixed. ② The Plaintiff received each of the above statements from the Defendant’s mother. In light of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the presumption of the authenticity of the seal imprint was reversed, and otherwise, evidence to prove the authenticity of the evidence No. 1 is true.