(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2018.10.23 2018나30532

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) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2018.10.23 2018나30532

증서진부확인의 소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff did not prepare the attached real estate sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and did not sell real estate under the instant sales contract to the Defendant.

Inasmuch as the sales contract of this case was forged, it is sought to confirm that the sales contract of this case is not a document that is duly formed.

2. Determination

A. According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s statement No. 4 and the entire pleadings, the fact that C, other than the Plaintiff, prepares a sales contract of this case with the Defendant under the name of the Plaintiff is recognized.

B. However, in light of the following facts and circumstances revealed in light of the overall purport of the statements and arguments stated in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the instant sales contract was duly prepared in the process where C, at the time of the Plaintiff and de facto marital relationship, transferred real estate in the name of the Plaintiff to the Defendant with the Plaintiff’s consent for the repayment of borrowed money to the Defendant, and thus, was duly prepared according to the Plaintiff’

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

① In order to repay borrowed money to the Defendant, C refers to transferring real estate in the name of the Plaintiff to the Defendant, and obtaining a certificate of personal seal impression for sale issued directly by the Plaintiff at the time, etc., C stated that the instant sales contract was prepared with the consent of the Plaintiff.

② On May 4, 2012, which was around the date of the preparation of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff received a certificate of personal seal impression directly for real estate buyers as Defendant.

③ Around 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content purporting to seek payment of KRW 18.7 million under the instant sales contract, on the premise that the instant sales contract was duly established.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

The judgment of the court of first instance is the same.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원속초지원 2017.11.14 2016가단1030

-부산지방법원 2018.12.05 2018가단2697

-서울행정법원 2010. 05. 12. 선고 2009구단4176 판결

-대법원 1990. 1. 23. 선고 89도2162 판결

-의정부지방법원 2018.05.25 2017나207216