beta
Text
1. Deed No. 284 dated 3, 2017, No. 2017, No. 284 against the Plaintiff’s Defendant.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Relevant party 1) The Defendant’s site for the gas station located in Gangwon-gun D and its ground facilities (hereinafter “instant gas station”).
(2) On March 2, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with E that wishes to operate the gas station in this case, with the Plaintiff registered as the business representative of the gas station in this case. However, from March 1, 2017 to March 2, 2018, E, as its actual operator, agreed to operate the gas station in this case and to bear all obligations arising in connection with the operation of the gas station in this case.
B. The lease E of the gas station of this case completed the registration of the business of the gas station of this case under the Plaintiff’s name pursuant to an agreement with the Plaintiff, and entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant with the Defendant on the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million,000,000, and KRW 2,000,000,000 from the rent month.
C. 1) On the other hand, E requested the Plaintiff to issue the Plaintiff a certificate of the Plaintiff’s personal seal impression, seal imprint, and identification card, as it is necessary for the Plaintiff to prepare documents to accept the instant gas station. 2) On February 20, 2017, the Plaintiff consented to use the Plaintiff’s certificate of the Plaintiff’s personal seal impression, seal imprint, and identification card.
On March 2017, E had the proxy form in the Plaintiff’s name issued the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression and seal imprint to the effect that the Defendant was unable to pay part of the lease deposit for the lease of the instant gas station, and that the Defendant was urged to pay the unpaid lease deposit from the Defendant or F who arranged for the lease of the instant gas station. 2) E issued the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression and seal imprint to F without the Plaintiff’s consent, stating that “it would have been notarized because it would have obtained the Plaintiff’s permission.”