beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 20,490,850 for the remainder of the purchase price of goods, such as co-days, beering, supplied to the Defendant by December 27, 2012, and KRW 7,023,50 for the remainder of the purchase price of goods, such as beerling, supplied to the Defendant from October 1, 2014 to October 23, 2014; and (b) the payment of KRW 28,091,50 for the remainder of the purchase price of goods, such as beering, supplied to D (mutual E) by the Defendant until June 12, 2014.
2. Determination
A. If, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the seal 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 prepared, barring any special circumstance, if the stamp image affixed on the document whether to recognize the formal evidence of a written confirmation of assumption of obligation (A) is affixed, and once the authenticity of the stamp image is presumed to have been created, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been created. However, if it is proved that the act of affixing the seal was made by a person other than the person in whose name the document is written, the document presenter is liable to prove that the act of affixing the seal is based on
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37831, Sept. 24, 2009). The defendant's seal affixed to the defendant's name and the defendant's seal affixed to the defendant's certificate of debt acquisition (No. 3) is affixed with the defendant's seal, barring any special circumstance, it shall be presumed that the seal was affixed by the defendant's will, unless there is a dispute between the parties.
However, in full view of the witness F’s testimony and the purport of the entire argument, it can be recognized that F had H affix the seal, business name, and seal on the part of the defendant’s name on the part of the defendant’s letter of debt acquisition, and that F had F or H affix the seal, further, it is recognized that F or H had the right to affix the seal.