인영의 진정이 인정되는 문서에 대하여 그 인영 자체의 도용을 주장하여 진정성립의 추정을 깰 수 있는지 여부

If a person who has affixed and submitted a waiver of the subcontract price direct payment agreement with the seal affixed on the BB Construction's name proves that it is not the representative of BB Construction, the presumption of the formal authenticity of the document is broken.

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

2013 Confirmation of a claim for payment of deposit money

AA Construction Corporation

Republic of Korea and 2

October 07, 2014

November 11, 2014

1. It is confirmed that, between the Plaintiff and Defendant BB Construction, Defendant C, the Gyeongbuk-do (representative D and the office of education under its jurisdiction) deposited on March 13, 2012 by the Daegu District Court No. 1516, Daegu District Court on March 13, 2012, the right to claim payment of deposit money of KRW 47,553,640 is against the Plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Republic of Korea is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of litigation, the part arising between the Plaintiff, Defendant BB Construction, and Defendant C shall be borne by Defendant BB and Defendant C, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant Korea shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

Non-party 47,553,640 won deposited under the name of the depositor of the OO Office of Education in 2012, which was made in the name of the non-party 1516 U.S. Office of Education, is confirmed to be the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 17, 2011, the Plaintiff awarded a subcontract to Defendant BB Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “B Construction”) for the part of reinforced concrete construction (hereinafter referred to as “B Construction”) upon receiving an order from Nonparty Gyeong-do (the representative D, the office of education, and the office of education under the jurisdiction of the office of education) from Nonparty Gyeong-do (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”). Defendant and Defendant C are creditors for Defendant BB Construction.

B. On June 10, 201 with respect to the above subcontracted construction parts, Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff, and Defendant B, agreed that the construction cost of KRW 323,400,000 shall be paid directly by Defendant BB Construction from Nonparty Gyeong-do (hereinafter “instant direct payment agreement”).

C. The obligees who did not receive labor costs, material costs, etc. from Defendant BB construction in connection with the instant construction project requested direct payment of labor costs, material costs, etc. to the Office of Education of the Gyeongbuk-do (competent OO Office of Education) and filed an application for a preservative measure against the third debtor and Defendant B construction as the debtor, the Gyeongbuk-do (representative D of Office of Education and the competent OO Office of Education) made a mixed deposit of KRW 47,553,640, which is the balance of the construction cost, with the following reasons for deposit:

On April 11, 201, the depositer and the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract for construction work with the Plaintiff on April 11, 201, and the Plaintiff agreed on the provision of Article 35(2) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry to pay KRW 323,40,00, out of the construction cost to Defendant B Construction. During the instant construction work progress, Defendant BB Construction cannot directly pay the remainder of the construction cost directly agreed with the depositer and the depositer on April 1, 201, Defendant BB Construction cannot be deemed to have been paid by the depositer, Defendant BB Construction Co., Ltd., and Defendant BB Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., submitted a written waiver of the payment of the remainder of the construction cost to Defendant BB Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., and Defendant BB Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., the depositer and the depositer to Defendant B Co., Ltd., Ltd., Defendant B’s debtor, 300, 206, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 10 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the process of the instant construction, Nonparty D, the person in charge of Defendant BB construction, was unable to direct construction due to injury, and there was an obstacle to the construction from that time, Defendant BB Construction waived the construction and agreed to undertake the construction at the same time. Accordingly, the remainder of the construction cost, excluding KRW 132,340,000, which was paid for Defendant BB construction, was paid by the Plaintiff from Nonparty Gyeong-do. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has the right to claim payment of the instant deposit.

B. Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion

Defendant BB Construction did not waive construction or waive direct payments (No. 4, which the Plaintiff cited as the ground for its assertion, is not prepared by the representative of Defendant BB Construction). Accordingly, the instant deposit is the construction cost to be paid by Defendant BB Construction according to the valid agreement on direct payment of subcontract consideration.

C. Defendant BB Construction and Defendant C did not appear in the pleading without submitting a written reply.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant BB Construction and Defendant C

Each confession judgment (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

4. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. Relevant legal principles

If, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the seal imprinted on a private document is presumed to have been made, barring any special circumstance, if the seal imprinted on the private document’s seal imprinted by the seal imprinted, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been made pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act, and once the authenticity of the seal imprinted is presumed to have been made. However, inasmuch as the authenticity of the seal imprinted is actual presumption that the act of signing and sealing is attributable to the intent of the holder of the title deed, the presumption of the authenticity is broken if the person disputing the authenticity of the seal imprinted by a court proves circumstances that the act of affixing and sealing is attributable to the intent of the holder of the title deed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da59122, Feb. 11

B. Determination

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the instant direct payment agreement was invalidated as it renounced the subcontracted portion among the instant construction projects, based on the evidence Nos. 3 and 5, and gave up the receipt of the instant subsidies. Defendant BB construction’s title and corporate seal affixed to Defendant BB construction; Defendant BB construction’s trade name and representative and corporate seal affixed to the Plaintiff’s certificate No. 5; and Defendant BB construction’s corporate seal affixed to the Plaintiff’s seal affixed thereto. According to the above evidence Nos. 3 and 5, the Plaintiff’s waiver of the subcontracted portion among the instant construction projects from a certain point of time and the Plaintiff’s direct construction work should be deemed to have been performed. However, even if the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was the representative F of Defendant BB construction, the Plaintiff appears to have maintained the Plaintiff’s account No. 5’s title and the Plaintiff’s account No. 2, which was the Plaintiff’s on-site construction, and the Plaintiff’s account No. 5, which was the Plaintiff’s employee at the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion (the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s account No. 5 was Nonparty 2).

In light of the above circumstances, the Plaintiff should ultimately prove that the seal stamp No. 5 was made by the representative of BB Construction or was made by the delegated person. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is not sufficient to acknowledge that there is no other evidence to acknowledge the fact (it is not sufficient to acknowledge the above fact even in light of the above circumstances, even though the Plaintiff’s evidence, other than the evidence No. 5, submitted by the Plaintiff, including the Plaintiff, should be presented a seal card, password, or a personal identification card and a personal identification number as to the issuance of BB Construction’s certificate, and the issuance of the above certificate, is insufficient to acknowledge the above fact). Therefore, there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff renounced the construction and renounced the receipt of the subsidies. Direct payment agreements between the Plaintiff, BB Construction, and Gyeong-do 3 are still valid, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit (it is reasonable to conclude that the direct payment agreement between the Plaintiff and the two parties is invalid even if the waiver of subsidies for BB construction is valid as the Plaintiff’s assertion).

C. Sub-decision

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant in Korea is without merit.

5. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant BB Construction and the defendant C is justified, and the claim against the defendant Republic of Korea is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.