beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B’s KRW 26,125,00 and for this, KRW 5% per annum from May 25, 2017 to January 18, 2018.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. A. Around July 30, 2011, the network E (hereinafter “the deceased”) prepared and delivered a letter of payment stating that “The Plaintiff would sell the G land in Scheon-si and repay KRW 52,250,000 to the deceased, as the Plaintiff paid the deceased’s debt to F on behalf of the deceased” (hereinafter “instant letter of payment”).
B. The Deceased died on December 16, 201, and succeeded to the Deceased’s inheritance. Defendant C filed a report on the inheritance limited approval on May 23, 2017, and the report was accepted on October 13, 2017.
Seoul Family Court (Seoul Family Court) 2017 Madan51133 / [Grounds for recognition]: The absence of dispute, the entry of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 9, the result of the commission to send documents to the H Residents' Self-Governing Center, the witness I's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the deceased had the obligation to pay KRW 52,250,00 to the plaintiff under the letter of payment in this case, and it is deemed that the Defendants inherited the above obligation to the plaintiff in equal proportion.
B. The Defendants denied the authenticity of the letter of payment in this case, but pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act, if the document is signed, sealed, or stamped by the principal or his agent, it shall be presumed that the document is authentic, and if it is recognized that the stamp image of the originator’s seal affixed to the document is a stamp image affixed by the seal of the originator’s name, barring special circumstances, the fact of affixing the seal shall be confirmed, and furthermore, the entire document is presumed to have been authentic. According to the results of the commission of document delivery to the H community self-governing center, it is recognized that the stamp image of the deceased’s seal affixed to the letter
For this reason, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendants’ act of affixing the seals of the deceased was also done by J as the instant payment note was made by J. Thus, presumption of the authenticity of the seal imprint is made.