beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion of the parties is as shown in the annexed sheet "the cause of claim", and the defendant's argument is as shown in the annexed sheet.
2. Determination
A. The relevant legal doctrine is presumed to have been authentic when the signature, seal, or seal of the person himself/herself or his/her agent is affixed (Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act). In cases where a person who prepares a private document admits that he/she has signed, sealed, or affixed the private document in question, in other cases where the formation of the portion of the stamp image, etc. is recognized, the authenticity of the entire document shall be presumed to have been established unless there are special circumstances, such as the reversal of such presumption by counter-proof, etc., and where the authenticity of the stamp image portion, etc. is recognized, the document may be presumed to have been signed, sealed, or affixed by the person who prepared the document in question under the condition that the entire document is completed, unless there are other special circumstances. The circumstances such as the fact that the person who signed the document first puts his/her signature and seal at the time when all or part of the document was completed shall be deemed to belong to this example. Therefore, if the person who prepared the completion document
B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da11406 delivered on April 11, 2003).
As of June 4, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that “The Plaintiff, as of March 30, 2017, posted the original sales contract to a pulverr without the Plaintiff’s consent, and removed the original sales contract as of March 18, 2017, and then affixed the Plaintiff, who is an aged aged person, to a pulvere and affix an unconditional seal thereto, without verifying the content thereof.” However, the Plaintiff asserted that “The sales contract as of June 4, 2017, and the purchase price as of March 18, 2017, are identical to the sales contract as of March 30, 2017, and was changed from March 30, 2017 to June 4, 2017.” However, the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is very unclear.