logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.08.22 2016가단5043370
물품대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On October 9, 2014, the Plaintiff, which caused the Plaintiff’s claim, operated a wholesale and retail business for household use with the name of “C”. On October 9, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for goods supply with the Defendant for the supply of 22,00,000 won to the urban-type residential housing located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (excluding value-added tax) and supplied all of them. The Defendant did not pay the above price. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 24,20,000 and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. If, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the seal imprinted on a private document is presumed to be established, barring any special circumstance, if the seal imprinted on the private document’s seal imprinted by his/her seal, the authenticity of the document is presumed to be established pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. On the other hand, if the authenticity of the seal imprinted is presumed to be established, the authenticity of the document is presumed to be established pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, the presumption that the act of signing and sealing is attributable to the intent of the holder of the title deed is de facto presumed. As such, if a person disputing the authenticity of the seal imprinted by a counter-

In addition, considering the fact that the existence and content of the declaration of intent according to the contents of the document should be recognized in the absence of any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that the authenticity of the document is recognized, it should be careful in estimating the authenticity of the document by the seal of the person who prepared the document.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da29667 Decided September 26, 2014). B.

In light of the above legal principles, although the fact that the defendant's seal is affixed to the defendant's name next to the defendant's contract for the supply of goods that contain the same purport as the plaintiff's assertion is recognized, although the defendant's seal is affixed to the defendant's name, Eul, 1, 2, 4, 16, 20, 22, and 22.

arrow