beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court concerning the basic facts and the summary of the parties' arguments is as stated in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. Judgment by issue
A. 1) Whether the authenticity of the statement of performance in this case is established or not, if the seal affixed to the name of the person who signed the statement of performance in this case was affixed with his seal, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been established, and if the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been established, the document shall be presumed to have been authentic. However, if it is proved that the act of affixing the seal was done by a person other than the name of the person who signed the document, the document presenter shall prove that the act of affixing the seal is based on the legitimate title delegated by the name of the person who signed the document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37831, Sept. 24, 2009). In light of the above legal principles, in this case, the fact that the seal affixed to the name of the defendant in this case was affixed with the defendant's seal affixed to the defendant, but there is no dispute between the parties, not the defendant, and therefore, it shall be proved by the defendant's legitimate authority to prove the authenticity of the execution in this case.
(1) Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the overall purport of the arguments and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 6, 28, 45, 46, 49, 52, 63, and 68, the defendant, as a driver, who had been living together with the U.S. and Korea, stored the defendant's seal impression, etc., and made the defendant prepare various documents under the name of the defendant. ② The plaintiff representative director C also has a favorable relationship with the defendant around September 30, 2015, which was written by the letter of performance of this case, and the aggravation of the relationship between the two persons is from January 2016.