(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.11.28 2018나62164

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) 부산지방법원 2019.11.28 2018나62164

손해배상(기)

Text

1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Reasons

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified when examining the submitted evidence

Therefore, the reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the cases that the plaintiff emphasized or added in the trial as stated in the following Paragraph 2, and therefore, the judgment of the first instance is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

(a) The parts of the Magho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho

【No. 5-2 of the evidence No. 5-2, the authenticity is recognized for the following reasons. If a seal affixed to a document is affixed by his/her seal, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the seal shall be established, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person who prepared the document. On the other hand, when the authenticity of the seal is presumed, the authenticity of the entire document shall be presumed pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act; however, such presumption is broken if it is proved that the act of affixing the seal was done by a person other than the person who prepared the document. Thus, the document presenter bears the burden of proving that the act of affixing the seal was based on a legitimate title delegated by the person who prepared the document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Meu6815, Apr. 25, 1989; 94Da24770, Mar. 10, 1995).

Therefore, the actual presumption of the act of sealing the seal was broken out as to the time of the plaintiff's will.

However, according to the statement of Eul evidence No. 11 submitted at the trial, H concludes a contract related to the construction of this case.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제358조

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.11.26 2015나6595

-창원지방법원 2019.09.19 2018나51727

-수원지방법원 오산시법원 2018.06.14 2017가단302

-부산지방법원 2020.02.12 2019나51321

-전주지방법원 2020.11.05 2019나10593