beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. On January 15, 2016, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 60,000,000 to the Defendant on February 14, 2016. The Plaintiff sought the return of the loan.
B. If, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the signature affixed to the signature-keeping’s seal affixed to the decision-making document is actually presumed to be based on the will of the person in whose name the document was written, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the signature shall be established, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is presumed to be based on the will of the person in whose name the document was written. Once the authenticity of the seal is presumed to be established, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act; however, if it is proved that the act of affixing the seal is carried out by a person other than
(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da41324 delivered on June 30, 1995, etc.). The defendant's name, as stated in the evidence Nos. 2 (Evidence) of this case, is due to the defendant's corporate seal impression, although there is no dispute between the parties that the following imprints after the defendant's name, is due to the defendant's corporate seal impression. Meanwhile, the plaintiff recognizes the fact that the non-party C affixed the defendant's corporate seal impression on the name of the defendant's above loan certificate. Thus, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact that the defendant's corporate seal impression was authorized to affix the defendant's corporate seal impression, and unless there is any evidence to acknowledge this, the evidence No. 2 of this case cannot be used as evidence and there is no
Furthermore, there is no evidence to deem C to have concluded a monetary loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with the power of representation granted by the Defendant.
Since C had the Defendant’s seal impression and seal impression, the Plaintiff believed C had the authority to act as an agent for the Defendant, and there was a justifiable reason to believe as such, and therefore, it is in accordance with the legal doctrine of expression agency under the Civil Act.