logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 포항지원 2018.10.16 2018가단1498
청구이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On March 29, 2002, the Plaintiff’s piloted facts C possessed the power of attorney with the Plaintiff’s signature and seal and a certificate of personal seal impression, etc., and prepared a notarial deed of debt repayment as stated in the purport that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the loan amount of KRW 20,000,000,00 to the Defendant by March 29, 2003, and C shall jointly and severally guarantee the Plaintiff’s above loan obligation” (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

On the other hand, on December 28, 2017, the Defendant received a collection order for the Plaintiff’s claim against Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. and Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. based on the Notarial Deed of this case as of December 28, 2017, and around that time, the above seizure and collection order became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the authentication document of this case is null and void because C voluntarily prepares the authentication document of this case without any authority to act on behalf of the plaintiff.

Therefore, the following circumstances are acknowledged based on the above facts, the facts of recognition, Eul's statement Nos. 1 through 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings, namely, C has obtained a business registration certificate by borrowing the plaintiff's name from this time.

The Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression attached to the instant notarial deed was issued on March 28, 2002, which was before the date of the preparation of the instant notarial deed. The Plaintiff’s letter of delegation affixed the Plaintiff’s seal impression, and the Plaintiff appears to have issued a certified copy of resident registration on March 28, 2002, and delivered it to C. The Plaintiff’s “D” and “E” number indicated in the certified copy of resident registration was the number used by the Plaintiff. On December 12, 2011, the Defendant was the number used by the Plaintiff. Based on the instant notarial deed, the Busan District Court’s branch branch was Busan District Court’s 201TT No. 15013, Dec. 12, 201.

arrow