(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.08.16 2015가단83695

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) 부산지방법원 2016.08.16 2015가단83695

청구이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts that there is no dispute between the parties;

A. On June 11, 2014, 2014, the notary public law firm Jeongsung, which belongs to the Busan District Public Prosecutor’s Office, drafted a notarial deed of money loan contract No. 428 of 2014 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the content that “C, on June 11, 2014, borrowed KRW 10,000,000 from the Defendant as interest rate of KRW 30% per annum, the maturity date of payment, June 11, 2015, and the Plaintiff’s guarantee limit of KRW 120,00,000, and the guarantee period of KRW 3 years and is jointly and severally and severally guaranteed.”

B. At the time of the preparation of the instant authentic deed, C represented the Plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's assertion did not delegate C with the authority to commission C to prepare the notarial deed on behalf of the plaintiff, but C does not have the authority to commission C to prepare the notarial deed of this case on behalf of the plaintiff, on the ground that C received the plaintiff's seal impression and certificate of personal seal from the plaintiff to use it for the work of D operated jointly with the plaintiff and entrusted C with the preparation of the notarial deed of this case on behalf of the plaintiff to a law firm Mac

3. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the parties to the judgment, which have no dispute between the parties to the judgment, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), testimony by witnesses E, and the overall purport of pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff entrusted C with the authority to commission C to prepare the notarial deed of this case. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff is referred to as the evidence, and Gap evidence No. 4 appears to be the Plaintiff’s personal account, Gap evidence No. 5, and Eul evidence No. 6, which are the Plaintiff’s personal account. It is difficult to reverse this by itself, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

The power of attorney attached to the preparation of the notarial deed of this case states that “the plaintiff delegates all the authority to commission C to prepare the notarial deed” and affixed the Plaintiff’s seal impression (hereinafter “the power of attorney of this case”).

유사 판례

-대전지방법원홍성지원 2020.10.16 2019가단32217

-대구지방법원포항지원 2017.05.30 2016가단2237

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2014.12.03 2014가합51725

-인천지방법원 2017.08.09 2016가단48777

-광주지방법원 2018.09.05 2017나2942