beta
Text
1. The part concerning the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.
2...
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) on June 21, 201, the Defendant and the first instance trial co-defendant D transfer the lease deposit amount of KRW 70 million in total, and KRW 170 million in total, and KRW 400,000,000,000,000 for the car center located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and KRW 355,000,000; (b) the Defendant and D did not pay the above transfer proceeds; (c) the Defendant and D are obligated to pay the Plaintiff each of the deposit amount of KRW 85,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
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, the transferee of the transfer contract (a certificate No. 3; hereinafter “the transfer contract of this case”) containing the purport as alleged by the Plaintiff is deemed to be the assignee.