(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.08.12 2019나1534 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.08.12 2019나1534

약정금등

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The ground for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if each evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the addition of the following "additional Determination" as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes or adds to this court, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that E, who prepared the contract of this case (Evidence A2), has the authority to act on behalf of the defendant company, and as long as the defendant's seal is affixed to the contract of this case, which is a disposal document, the defendant's declaration of intent as stated therein, shall be deemed to have existed, and the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the agreed amount under the contract

In this regard, the defendant asserts that, since the contract of this case was voluntarily prepared by E without the authority to prepare the contract in the name of the defendant, the defendant does not have the obligation to pay the agreed amount.

B. 1) Determination 1) If the stamp image of the person in whose name the document is affixed is printed out by his/her seal, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the stamp image shall be 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 written, and once the authenticity of the stamp image is presumed to have been established, the authenticity of the entire document shall be presumed to have been established. However, such presumption is broken if it is revealed that the act of affixing the seal was carried out by a person other than the person in whose name the document was written, and thus, the person in whose name the document was affixed is liable to prove that the act of affixing the seal was based on a legitimate title delegated by the person in whose name the document was written (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37831, Sept. 24, 20

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2014.06.27 2012가단26919

-청주지방법원제천지원 2017.09.06 2016가단2730

-청주지방법원 2017.11.03 2017가합312

-수원지방법원 오산시법원 2018.06.14 2017가단302

-의정부지방법원 2016.03.25 2015가합1786