logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2013.09.10 2011가합4014
약정금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that on August 21, 2009, Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) conducted a sales agency business for commercial facilities in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government DD Building (hereinafter “D sales agency business”) between Defendant B and the event of the Si.

30 million won was invested in order to enter into a contract with respect to “A contract”. The Defendants entered into an investment agreement with a view to receiving KRW 1 billion, which is 10% of the commission under the said sales agency contract, from the Defendants. The Defendants seek payment of KRW 1 billion from the proceeds under the said investment agreement.

B. The Defendants asserted that Defendant B borrowed KRW 300 million from the Defendant in relation to the contract for the parcelling-out agency, and agreed to re-consign the D parcelling-out agency business to the Defendant, and that Defendant B and the Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”) provided the Plaintiff with the corporate seal impression, corporate seal impression certificate, etc. on the collateral of this, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff arbitrarily prepared and forged the “investment agreement and loan certificate” with the content of guaranteeing interest of KRW 50 million and interest of KRW 10% (1 billion).

2. Determination

A. In a case where it is recognized that the seal affixed to a document at issue of the case is the seal affixed to the name holder’s seal, barring any special circumstance, the establishment of the seal imprint shall be presumed to have been made based on the will of the name holder, i.e., the act of affixing the seal. Once the authenticity of the seal is presumed, the person who asserts that the document was forged shall prove that the above seal was affixed against the will of the name holder (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da72029, Feb. 5, 2002).

arrow