logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2020.12.17 2019가합54576
토지인도
Text

1. Defendant C:

A. Of the 12,069 square meters of land D miscellaneous land in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, the attached Form No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,1 shall be indicated.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(Provided, That only part of Defendant C). (b)

Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act (Judgment by service) of the applicable provisions of Acts

2. The Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant B on the land specified in the Disposition No. 1, and filed each claim to the effect that the lease agreement was terminated.

If, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the signature affixed to a document is created by his/her seal, the document is actually presumed to have been created, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person in whose name the document is written, and once the authenticity of the seal is presumed to have been created, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been created. However, if it is revealed that the act of affixing the seal was done by a person other than the person in whose name the document was written, the document presenter is liable to prove that the act of affixing the seal was made by a legitimate title delegated by the person in

Therefore, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da69686, Apr. 8, 2003; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37831, Sept. 24, 2009). Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion itself, the lessee’s name “E” as stated in the lease agreement (Evidence A No. 2-2, 2003) appears to be a clerical error in the name of the lessee.

In light of the above legal principles, even if there is no dispute as to the identity of the above seal, the plaintiff, who is the document, is responsible for proving that the act of affixing the seal was due to the legitimate title delegated by the defendant B, who is the name of the document, and there is no evidence to deem that the defendant C received the power of representation for the conclusion of the above lease contract from the defendant B.

arrow