Cases
2011AD 4014 Agreement Payments
Plaintiff
A
Defendant
1. A stock company B;
2. C:
Conclusion of Pleadings
August 13, 2013
Imposition of Judgment
September 10, 2013
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim
The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 1 billion won and 20% interest per annum from October 16, 2009 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff's assertion
On August 21, 2009, the Plaintiff invested KRW 300 million in the contract deposit money to enter into a contract for the sales agency business of commercial facilities in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “D sales agency business”) with Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) on August 21, 2009, and entered into an investment agreement with the Defendants to receive KRW 1 billion out of the fees under the said sales agency contract. The Plaintiff sought against the Defendants the payment of KRW 1 billion from the said investment agreement.
B. The defendants' assertion
The Defendants asserted that Defendant B borrowed KRW 300 million from the Defendant as contract performance guarantee in relation to the D parcelling-out agency contract, and agreed to renew D parcelling-out agency business to the Defendant, and that Defendant B and the Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant C”) issued to the Plaintiff a corporate seal impression, corporate seal impression certificate, etc. on the collateral of this, and the Plaintiff arbitrarily prepared and forged an investment agreement and a loan certificate (Evidence 6) with the content that the Plaintiff guarantees interest of KRW 50 million and interest of KRW 10 billion (1 billion).
2. Determination
A. Case issues
Where it is recognized that the seal affixed to a document is the seal affixed to the seal affixed to the name of the name holder, barring any special circumstance, the establishment of the seal affixed to the document shall be presumed to have been made on the basis of the will of the name holder. Once the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been completed, the person who asserts that the document has been forged shall prove that the above seal was affixed against the will of the name holder (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da72029, Feb. 5, 2002). In addition, the fact that each corporate seal affixed to the name of the defendant company stated in the name of the name of the name of the name holder, which is the core evidence of the cause of the plaintiff's claim, has no dispute between the parties, and thus the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been completed. Accordingly, with respect to the fact that the "investment agreement and loan certificate" were forged, the person who asserts that the document was forged shall bear the responsibility to prove the forgery, 'investment agreement' and loan certificate'.
(b) Fact of recognition;
The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged pursuant to the purport of Gap evidence 1 through Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 1 through Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 14, Eul evidence 17, Eul evidence 71 through Eul evidence 147 (including additional number) and the whole pleadings:
1) Status of the Defendants
Defendant B is a company with the purpose of real estate sales agency, etc., and Defendant C also aims at real estate sales agency, etc., and E is the representative director of the above two companies.
2) The relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants with respect to the payment of money before the D sales agency business
Around July 9, 2009, Defendant B entered into a contract with Nonparty F Co., Ltd. on the sales agency business for commercial facilities located in the G Housing Site District (hereinafter referred to as “G sales agency business”). Since the performance of the contract requires KRW 200 million, Defendant B received KRW 200 million from the Plaintiff through Nonparty H on July 15, 2009, and paid the said money to the Plaintiff on August 21, 2009.
3) The relationship between the Plaintiff, the Defendants, and E related to the D sales agency business
A) Defendant B entered into a contract on Dsale agency business with Defendant B, a implementing company, Co., Ltd., Ltd., for the execution of the said contract, and the contract amounting to KRW 300 million was required for the performance of the said contract. As such, Defendant B received KRW 300 million from the Plaintiff on August 21, 2009.
B) At the time, on August 21, 2009, Defendant B entered into a service contract stating that “The Plaintiff shall delegate the sales agency business of Defendant B to the Plaintiff, and Defendant B shall pay part of the sales agency fees paid by Defendant B to the Plaintiff.”
C) In addition, E returned KRW 300 million to October 15, 2009, when Defendant B and E, the due date for repayment, and paid KRW 50 million to the interest on September 15, 2009, and if the borrowed amount is not returned by the due date, the principal of the borrowed amount shall be deemed KRW 490 million, not KRW 300 million, and the interest on the borrowed amount shall be paid KRW 490,000,000,000,000,0000 per annum, and the said amount shall be paid damages for delay by 48% per annum to the Plaintiff. The Defendants and E issued a promissory note with the issuer’s certificate of the personal seal impression as well.
D) The Plaintiff received from Defendant B and C’s corporate seal imprint, passbook in the corporate deposit account, and personal seal imprint, and had H keep them.
E) The “investment agreement or loan certificate (Evidence A)” is written on August 21, 2009, stating that the date of preparation is as follows. The content of the contract is as follows. There is a document attached to the end of the contract: one copy of the unpaid fee that was not received from the KS Construction Co., Ltd. and Maker Holdings Co., Ltd., Ltd., and Maker Holdings Co., Ltd., and one copy of the contract for the sale of the business in lots between the Defendant B and the Defendant C’s certificate of personal seal impression; 3. One copy of the share transfer agreement and the service contract with the Plaintiff on May 21, 2009, respectively; and the seal imprint of the Defendants’ legal entity is affixed.
A (the plaintiff refers to the plaintiff) shall invest 200 million won of the performance security deposit of 200 million won under D sales agency contract, and Eul shall borrow this and distribute interest and its profits. 1. Investment amount and redemptionets shall invest 300 million won in cash to Eul. The amount of this investment shall be that of 50 million won of interest (the separate service contract relating to the status and the profit from the money investment) as much as Party A may cause bonds to be secured. 2. Investment Terms and Conditions A provide 30 million won of interest as D sales agency and provide 50 million won of interest and 10 billion won of interest (1 billion won of interest return: 50 million won of interest return plan: 50 million won of interest return contract and 10 billion won of interest return of 1.3 billion won of interest return of 1.00 billion won of 2005.3 billion won of interest return of 1.00 billion won of 2.5 billion won of interest return of 1.3 billion won of 2009.
F) “B shares and service contract (A evidence 13)” include the following: “B shall subcontract the sales of D-sale agency business to the Plaintiff on August 21, 2009; however, the Plaintiff shall be paid KRW 1 billion, an amount equivalent to 10% of the sales agency fees.” The special agreement contains the following: “If the Plaintiff collects the investment profits of G sales agency business and the investment profits of the sales agency business prior to October 15, 2009, from Defendant B, the sales agency fee shall be paid in accordance with the sales schedule.” The Defendant B’s corporate seal imprint shall also be sealed.
4) The relationship between the payment of money after the D sales agency business
A) On August 26, 2009, the Plaintiff lent 50 million won to I introduced by E as the advertising campaign material production contract deposit for G sales agency business.
B) Meanwhile, on October 6, 2009, Defendant C entered into an agreement with Mack Holdings Holdings Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Maack Holdings”) and KS Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SK Construction”) on April 21, 2008 on the termination of the contract for the sale agency business of the JS Building (hereinafter “J parcelling-out agency business”) in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, which was entered into on April 21, 2008. At the time H brought the corporate seal affixed by Defendant C, and again brought the corporate seal affixed to K, who is an employee of E, affixed approximately KRW 980,000,000,000,000,000,000 won as a sales commission.
"The current status of unpaid occupancy agency fees" is attached to the written agreement signed by Mash Holdings, KS Construction, and Defendant C on October 6, 2009, and "the current status of unpaid occupancy agency fees" is between Macker Holdings, KS Construction, and Defendant C's seal impression as the main source of the corporate seal impression.
On the other hand, on September 28, 2009, K received the draft of the above termination agreement by e-mail, and on October 23, 2009, K sent the draft of the termination agreement to H by e-mail.
C) At the time of October 21, 2009, E, at the time of maturity, did not return the borrowed amount of KRW 300 million to the Plaintiff by the due date, E paid delay damages of KRW 12 million per month, and if the borrowed amount is not returned by October 30, 2009, E shall transfer all the claims to the Plaintiff.”
5) A criminal trial against the plaintiff
The Plaintiff, in collusion with H, forged an investment agreement and a loan certificate (hereinafter referred to as “investment agreement”). The indictment was initiated on the charges, such as the charge (U.S. District Court Decision 201Da154, 2011Kadan571, 201Kadan571, 201Kadan4). On July 19, 2013, the Defendant was convicted of the facts charged and sentenced to imprisonment for a four-year period, and the judgment of the appellate court is still pending (U.S. District Court Decision 2013679).
C. Determination
살피건대, 위 인정사실과 앞서 든 각 증거에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 원고는 2009. 8. 21. E에게 D 분양대행사업의 계약이행증거금으로 사용할 3억 원을 대여할 당시 E가 작성한 '차용증'을 받고, 이와 별도로 '투자약정서 및 차용증'을 E와 작성하였다고 주장하고 있으나, 같은 날 하나의 법률관계에 관하여 '차용증'을 작성하고 이와 별도로 '차용증'이란 단어를 중복하여 사용하는 '투자약정서 및 차용증'을 작성하는 것은 부자연스럽고, '차용증'에는 원고에게 이자 5,000만원 외에 별도로 투자이익금을 지급한다는 내용이 기재되어 있지 아니하나, '투자약정서 및 차용증'에는 원고에게 이자 5,000만원 외에 별도로 투자이익금 10억 원을 보장한다는 내용이 기재되어 있으며, 차용증'에는 변제기 도과시 차용금 원금을 3억 원이 아닌 4억 9,000만 원으로 보고 이에 대하여 지연손해금을 지급한다는 내용이 기재되어 있으나, '투자약정서 및 차용증'에는 변제기 도과시 차용금 원금인 3억 원에 대하여 지연손해금을 지급한다는 내용이 기재되어 있어, '차용증'과 '투자약정서 및 차용증'의 내용이 일치하지 않는 사실, ② 원고는 위 형사사건의 검찰 수사단계에서 작성일자가 2009. 8. 21.인 '투자약정서 및 차용증을 제출하면서 그 첨부서류로 '분양대행수수료', '신규계약수수료청구', '미지급수수료청구', '미지급입주대행수수료현황'이란 서류를 함께 제출하였는데, 위 첨부서류 중 '미지급입주대행수수료현황'은 E가 2009. 10. 6. 마커스홀딩스, 에스케이건설과 작성한 서류이므로, '투자약정서 및 차용증'의 작성일자인 2009. 8. 21. 첨부될 수 없는 서류인바, 이에 대하여 원고와 H는 '투자약정서 및 차용증'을 작성한 후에 E로부터 받은 '미지급입주대행수수료현황'을 실수로 함께 제출한 것이라고 주장하면서 그 근거로 위 4개의 침부서류가 '투자약정서 및 차용증'과 간인이 되어 있지 아니한 것을 들고 있으나, 위 4개의 첨부서류는 모두 피고 C의 법인 인감도장으로 간인이 되어 있어 위 4개의 첨부서류가 일체의 서류임이 표시되어 있고, '투자약정서 및 차용증'은 첨부서류로 "1. 에스케이건설과 마커스홀딩스로부터 못 받은 미지급수수료내역 1부"를 명시하면서 이와 별도로 다른 미지급 분양대행수수료에 관한 서류를 첨부한다는 내용은 기재되어 있지 아니하며, '투자약정서 및 차용증'은 작성 당시 첨부하지 아니하고 추후 첨부할 서류에 관하여는 "(차후 첨부)"라는 내용을 부기하고 있으므로, '미지급입주대행 수수료현황'은 '투자약정서 및 차용증'의 작성 당시 첨부된 서류로 보일 뿐만 아니라, E가 마커스홀딩스, 에스케이건설과 작성한 진정한 '미지급입주대행수수료현황'은 마커 스홀딩스, 에스케이건설, 피고 C의 법인 인감도장으로 간인이 되어 있으나, 원고가 '투자약정서 및 차용증'에 첨부한 '미지급입주 대행수수료현황'은 피고 C의 법인 인감도장만으로 간인이 되어 있는 사실, ③ 작성일자가 2009. 8. 21.인 'B 지분 및 용역계약서'에는 원고가 2009. 8. 26.에 이르러서야 I에게 대여한 광고홍보물제작대행계약의 계약금 5,000만원에 대한 투자이익금을 E가 원고에게 반환한다는 내용이 기재되어 있는 사실, ④ 원고와 H는 위 형사사건의 경찰 수사단계에서 '투자약정서 및 차용증'의 작성일에 관하여 별다른 주장을 하지 아니하다가, 검찰 수사단계에서부터 '투자약정서 및 차용증'은 피고들의 법인 인감도장이 아닌 법인 사용인감도장이 날인되어 있었고, 원고가 피고들의 법인 인감도장을 보관하지 아니함에도 이를 보관한다는 내용이 기재되어 있어 2009. 8. 26.경 내지 2009. 9. 초경 사이에 이를 재작성하였으며, 형사사건에 제출된 '투자약정서 및 차용증'은 작성일자에 작성한 계약서가 아니라 그 후 재작성한 계약서라고 주장하기 시작하였는데, 원고가 H를 통하여 피고들의 법인 인감도장을 보관하였으므로, '투자약정서 및 차용증 및 차용증'을 작성일자 후 재작성하였다는 경위에 관한 원고와 H의 주장을 쉽게 수긍하기 어렵고, 원고와 H가 검찰 수사단계에 이르러 '투자약정서 및 차용증'재작성되었다고 주장한 것은 '투자약정서 및 차용증'과 작성일자가 2009. 8. 21.로 동일하고 '투자약정서 및 차용증'이 투자이익금 10억 원의 지급시기에 관하여 참조하도록 명시한 'B 지분 및 용역계약서'에 위에서 본 바와 같이 원고가 그 작성일자 후인 2009. 8. 26. I에게 대여한 광고홍보물제작 대행계약 계약금에 대한 투자이익금 지급에 관한 조항이 기재되어 있는 것을 뒤늦게 발견하고 'B 지분 및 용역계약서'가 작성일자와 달리 위 I에 대한 대여일인 2009. 8. 26. 이후에 작성되었다고 주장하기 위한 것으로 보이는 사실, ⑤ '투자약정서 및 차용증', 'B 지분 및 용역계약서'의 작성 시기, 장소, 경위에 관한 원고와 H의 진술이 일관되지 아니하고 서로 모순되기도 하는 사실, ⑥ 원고는 H를 통하여 피고들의 법인 인감도장을 모두 보관하고 있었고, 원고와 H는 현재까지 이를 E에게 반환하지 아니하였으므로, 원고와 H는 E의 허락 없이도 '투자약정서 및 차용증', 'B 지분 및 용역계약서'에 피고들의 법인 인감도장을 날인하는 것이 가능한 지위에 있는데, H가 법인 인감도장을 이 사건 후 스키장에 버렸다고 진술하였다가 계속 보관하고 있다고 진술하는 등 이에 관하여 일관되게 진술하지 아니하고 있는 사실, ① 원고와 H는 '투자약정서 및 차용증 및 차용증', 'B 지분 및 용역계약서'의 작성일자인 2009. 8. 21. 대여금 3억 원의 담보를 위하여 E로부터 피고들 및 E가 발행인인 약속어음을 발행받으면서 피고들의 법인 인감증명서와 E의 개인 인감증명서를 모두 교부받았으므로, 원고가 '투자약정서 및 차용증', 'B 지분 및 용역계약서'의 작성일 무렵 발급된 피고들의 법인 인감증명서와 E의 개인 인감증명서를 소지하고 있다는 것만으로는 위 각 문서가 진정한 문서라고 보기에 충분한 자료가 되지 못하는 사실 등을 종합하여 보면, 원고가 '투자약정서 및 차용증' 및 'B 지분 및 용역계약서'를 모두 위조하였다고 봄이 상당하다.
Therefore, the "investment agreement and a loan certificate" cannot be recognized as the authenticity of the agreement, and it cannot be used as evidence, and there is no other evidence to prove the above facts of the plaintiff's assertion. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges
The presiding judge, the senior judge;
Judges Domine
Judges Royle