logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2016.01.28 2015가단110487
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is made by a notary public on June 26, 2013 with respect to a promissory note No. 1896 dated June 26, 2013 (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with respect to the Plaintiff’s issuer, Plaintiff Co., Ltd., D, B, C, Defendant, Defendant, par value KRW 70,00,000, issue date, and one promissory note No. 70,000,000, which is payable at sight for the payment date (hereinafter “instant promissory note”). However, the Plaintiff signed the instant promissory note, but there was no fact that the Plaintiff signed it, and there was no fact that the Plaintiff affixed a seal on the delegation of authority to commission the preparation of the instant notarial deed.

Inasmuch as a third party’s seal affixed to the Promissory Notes of this case without the Plaintiff’s permission, the Plaintiff is not liable as an issuer for the Promissory Notes of this case. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case should be denied.

2. In full view of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the Promissory Notes and No. notarial deeds of this case were prepared by the plaintiff's will, i.e., the plaintiff's signature on the Promissory Notes and the power of attorney, the plaintiff's seal impression is affixed to the commission of the preparation of the deed of this case, D stated that the Plaintiff's seal impression was affixed on the Promissory Notes and the power of attorney on the form of the plaintiff's receipt of the plaintiff's seal impression from the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff seems to have not raised any objection to the preparation of the Promissory Notes and No. 1 and No. 2,

Therefore, the prior plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow