(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2015.06.18 2014가합6905

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) 수원지방법원성남지원 2015.06.18 2014가합6905

청구이의

Text

1. The Defendant’s execution of the loan case against the Plaintiff is the Suwon District Court 2012 tea 1487.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 28, 2007, C, the Plaintiff’s wife, prepared and delivered to the Defendant a promissory note amounting to KRW 200,000,000,000, issue date on June 28, 2007, Gyeonggi-do, the place of payment, and Gyeonggi-do, the place of issuance (hereinafter “instant promissory note”).

B. On November 17, 2008, the Defendant prepared a notarial deed on the Promissory Notes as an issuer’s agent and an addressee’s agent under No. 692 of the No. 2008.

C. The Defendant filed an application for a payment order claiming payment of KRW 200,000,000 for loans against the Plaintiff based on the instant promissory note with the Suwon District Court Decision 201Du1487, Suwon District Court, Sungnam-si, Gwangju District Court, and the said payment order was issued on June 12, 2012 and became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant payment order”). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the promissory note of this case was issued by C, the plaintiff's wife, and the plaintiff did not confer upon C the right to represent the issuance of the Promissory Notes of this case. Thus, the issuance of the Promissory Notes of this case is null and void, and even if the Promissory Notes of this case are valid, D, the principal obligor of this case, fully performs the obligations that caused the Promissory Notes of this case, so the compulsory execution based

3. Determination

A. If the seal imprinted on the one’s private document to determine the validity of the Promissory Notes in this case is based on his seal, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the seal imprint is actually presumed to have been formed, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person’s name. On the other hand, if the authenticity of the seal imprinted is presumed, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been formed. However, if it is proved that the act of affixing the seal was done by a person other than the person’s name of the document

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.29 2016나53434

-광주지방법원 2015.08.26 2014나14906

-수원지방법원 오산시법원 2018.06.14 2017가단302

-부산지방법원 2017.11.30 2017나3298

-전주지방법원 2018.10.02 2018가단215