beta
Text
1. The defendant is jointly and severally with the non-party Cheongsung Construction Co., Ltd. and the amount of KRW 23,859,000 and that of the above, from June 12, 2014 to June 2015.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. 1) Determination as to the authenticity of the document No. 1 (1) If the seal imprinted by the document’s seal imprinted by the document’s seal, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the document is actually presumed to have been formed, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person in whose name the document was prepared, and once the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been completed, the document’s authenticity is presumed to have been completed pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, the above presumption is broken if it is proved that the act of affixing the seal was conducted by a person other than the person in whose name the document was prepared, and thus, the document presenter bears the responsibility to prove that the act of affixing the document was based on a legitimate title delegated by the person in whose name the document was prepared (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da69686, Apr. 8, 200). 2) The defendant’s seal imprinted by the document No. 1
Witness
According to C's testimony, it is recognized that A and A are affixed and sealed by B.
Therefore, the presumption of the formation of a petition has been broken.
However, in full view of the above testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings, the above Eul is deemed to have obtained a normal delegation from the person in charge of the defendant company and affixed the seal impression of the defendant company, taking into account the following: (a) the defendant company’s person in charge of the defendant company and the defendant company have been in charge of telephone conversations with the defendant company before signing and sealing the above evidence; and (b) the fact that the defendant company and the defendant company seems to have received the construction of this case in fact jointly; and (c) the above Eul appears to have no special reason to place the defendant company’s seal impression in mind without permission of the person in charge of the defendant company.
B. The Plaintiff did not dispute any judgment, and according to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the entire pleadings.