(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.22 2014나42720

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.22 2014나42720

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the part below 2-B judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 19 to No. 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance) among the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. According to Article 7(2)2 of the former Framework Act on Electronic Commerce (amended by Act No. 11461, Jun. 1, 2012); “A addressee of an electronic document may, in relation to an originator or his/her agent, regard the addressee’s expression of intent contained in the electronic document as the originator’s act, where the received electronic document has been transmitted by the addressee, in accordance with his/her relationship with the originator or his/her agent, to be based on the intent of the originator or his/her agent.” Article 11 of the same Act provides that “The matters concerning digital signature among electronic commerce shall be governed by the Digital Signature Act.”

On the other hand, Article 3(2) of the Digital Signature Act provides that "where a certified digital signature exists, the relevant digital signature shall be the signature, signature, or seal of the Signatory, and the content thereof shall be presumed not to have been altered after the digital signature is affixed." Article 18-2 of the same Act provides that "where other Acts do not restrict or exclude the identification of the principal by using an authorized certificate, the identification of the principal may be confirmed by an authorized certificate issued by a licensed certification authority pursuant to the provisions of this Act." Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "private document shall be presumed to have been authentic when it is signed, sealed, or stamped by the principal or his agent."

(1) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement of evidence Nos. 1 to 3, 1.

참조조문

유사 판례

-대법원 2018.03.29 2017다257395

-광주지방법원순천지원 2020.05.20 2019가단6618

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.13 2017가단90552

-울산지방법원 2016.03.17 2015나22588

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.17 2019가단5264000