2010Na82341 Bills

○ ○

○○ ○○ ○○ Dong

Law Firm ○, Attorneys ○○-○, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

1. ○○○

2. ○○○

Defendants’ Address Canadian Bravia State ○ ○○

Defendants Law Firm ○, Attorneys ○○-○, et al.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Da63619 Decided August 12, 2009

July 22, 2011

September 9, 2011

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The defendants, each of the plaintiff 800, 000, 000 won, and about this, are from June 30, 2005 to June 30, 2009.

6% per annum, 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, respectively.

H. D. Payment

2. Purport of appeal

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff’s assertion

Each Promissory Notes listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "each Promissory Notes of this case") shall be the Defendant.

On June 30, 2002, the payee was entered as Nonparty 1 and issued to Nonparty 1, and such issuance was made.

Then, Nonparty 1 endorsed and transferred each of the Promissory Notes in this case to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendants are the Plaintiff.

80 million won of each of the Promissory Notes in this case shall be paid to the High Court.

(2) The defendants' assertion

Each of the Promissory Notes in this case is forged and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is unreasonable.

2. Whether the bill has been authentic;

(1) A person whose name and seal is written on a promissory note as the obligor is forged.

the holder of a bill seeking the performance of the obligation on the bill, if so asserted,

It must be proved that the name and seal is authentic (Supreme Court Decision 97Da108 delivered on February 10, 1998).

3113 See Supreme Court Decision 3113. On the other hand, the seal affixed to the seal affixed by the person in whose name the bill or document is signed and sealed.

unless there is a special reason, the act of sealing the authenticity of the seal, i.e., signing the seal, unless there is a special reason to the contrary.

If the authenticity of the seal is presumed to be due to the intention of the person who has made the name, and once the authenticity of the seal is presumed to be established,

is presumed to have made the authenticity of the bill or the entire document of the person making the statement, but in fact, as above;

Presumption is made by a person other than the person under whose name the seals are written.

As such, in such cases, the person who has submitted a bill or document shall affix his/her seal thereto to the person who has signed it.

It is also responsible to prove that it is based on a legitimate title delegated by the court (Supreme Court)

Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da4151 Decided August 24, 1993 and Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37831 Decided September 24, 2009

see Supreme Court Decision).

(2) A party who is a party to the instant promissory note that the Defendants’ seals on each of the instant promissory notes are affixed with the seals of the Defendants.

There is no dispute between them.

(3) However, taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence No. 1

Each of the Promissory Notes in this case is written as "Seoul Metropolitan Government" and issued in Korea.

The issue of each of the Promissory Notes in this case is clear that the issue of each of the Promissory Notes in this case is a "domestic bill".

The Defendants are indicated as the issue date of each of the Promissory Notes of this case and around June 30, 2002.

Since it is recognized that the defendant was not in the Republic of Korea, he was stamped on the issuer column of each of the Promissory Notes of this case.

It is reasonable to regard that at least the seal affixed by a person other than the Defendants.

Thus, the presumption of the authenticity of the issuance of each of the Promissory Notes in this case shall be broken.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is responsible for proving that the part of the issuance of the Promissory Notes in this case is true and correct.

A person who is the name of the issuer of each Promissory Notes of this case and is delegated by the Defendants with the authority to affix seals.

In order to prove the fact that the plaintiff had affixed the seal, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone cannot be recognized.

(4) The Plaintiff stated that “each of the Promissory Notes in this case was issued and due, but was in blank, Nonparty 1.

1. The fact that the date of issuance and the date of payment are stated on the basis of the blank supplement right granted by the Defendants.

D. Each of the Promissory Notes of this case was written as the date of issuance on June 30, 2002, and the Defendants were not in Korea.

The presumption of the authenticity of the issuance of each of the Promissory Notes in this case must be broken.

The reasons are not that they were “........”

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone that each of the Promissory Notes in this case was issued and due

or to recognize that a blank bill was issued or was issued on a date different from the above issue date;

It is difficult and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is not correct.

(5) Therefore, since the Defendants cannot be deemed to have issued each of the instant promissory notes, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have issued them.

The claim of this case is unreasonable without examining the remainder of the claims.

3. Conclusion

If so, all of the plaintiff's claims of this case are dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is delivered with this conclusion.

D. Since it is improper to accept the appeal by the Defendants, the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all the claims of the Plaintiff are filed.

The dismissal is dismissed.

Judges Jo Hee-de

Judges Invitations

Judges Lee Sung-sung