logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.04.24 2017가단4166
청구이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 1, 2014, a notary public drafted a notarial deed (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) in relation to promissory notes, the issue date of which is April 28, 2014, with respect to the issuer’s wife C and Plaintiff’s wife C and face value KRW 20 million, and the issuer’s promissory notes, the issue date of which is April 28, 2014 (hereinafter “instant promissory notes”).

B. Of the issuer column of the Promissory Notes, the Plaintiff’s seal imprint is affixed to the Plaintiff’s name next to the Plaintiff’s name. At the time of the preparation of the instant notarial deed, the Plaintiff himself/herself submitted a certificate of seal impression issued on April 23, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. Of the column for the issuer of promissory notes of this case’s assertion, the part of the Plaintiff is prepared without the Plaintiff’s consent, misappropriation of the Plaintiff’s seal imprint, and thus, the Defendant’s compulsory execution based on the instant authentic deed against the Plaintiff ought to be denied.

B. Of the issuer column of the Promissory Notes, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s portion of the Plaintiff’s seal imprint was prepared by stealing the Plaintiff’s seal imprint without the Plaintiff’s consent. However, as seen earlier, it is acknowledged that the Plaintiff issued a certificate of personal seal imprint issued by the Plaintiff to Defendant C on April 23, 2014, prior to the preparation of the instant authentic deed. Accordingly, according to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff appears to have been aware of the use of the said certificate, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion is groundless.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow