logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.12.22 2015나17232
대여금
Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) Whether the authenticity of the stamp imprints Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (a) is established or not, i.e., the stamp imprints affixed on a private document, barring any special circumstance, if the stamp imprints affixed on the stamp imprints with the stamp imprints, the authenticity of the stamp imprints is presumed to be established, barring any special circumstance. Once the authenticity of the stamp imprints is presumed to be established, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to be established pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, since the authenticity of the stamp imprints and the presumption that the act of affixing the stamp imprints according to the intent of the title holder is actual presumption, the presumption of the authenticity is broken if the person disputing the authenticity of the stamp imprints proves circumstances that the act of affixing the stamp imprints is against the will of the title holder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da94728, Aug. 22, 2013).

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff and Defendant B stored the Plaintiff the Plaintiff’s seal impression design, etc. for the management of the said company in the course of running the Plaintiff Company F, and did not prepare each of the instant loan certificates, and that each of the above loan certificates was forged by the Plaintiff.

However, considering the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Defendants and the testimony of the witness D and the witness H of the first instance trial are insufficient to acknowledge the Defendants’ above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The evidence submitted by the Defendants and the testimony of the witness D and the witness of the first instance trial is insufficient.

Therefore, the presumption of the authenticity of each of the instant loans is reversed.

arrow