beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasons for the court's explanation of this case are as follows: "No. 150 million won was given to C while establishing "the creation" under Section 2, Section 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance; "No. 1 is presumed to have been made as a whole because the identity of the person in charge of the document was recognized," under Section 3 of Section 4, "No. 1 is presumed to have been affixed with the seal of the person in charge of the document signed on No. 1 is affixed with the seal of the person in charge of the document No. 1, unless there are special circumstances, it is presumed that the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person in charge of the document; once the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been made, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been made in accordance with Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act, and there is a need for evidence such as reasonable grounds and indirect counter-proof to support this in order to reverse the presumption of the authenticity of the document.
The authenticity of the entire document is presumed to be established, in full view of the statement No. 7 and the purport of the whole argument, since it is recognized that the following stamp image of C name is made with C’s seal.
The plaintiff asserted that C's seal was stolen or sealed differently from C's will, but the defendant consistently requested C to cancel the lease agreement due to the leakage of sewage of the housing of this case, that is, the defendant prepared the above lease contract by holding C not to be the difference if C still enjoyed the repair work again. The preparation of the above lease contract was asserted that C was a real estate intermediary, but C was read and sealed directly on June 24, 2014, which was before the filing of the lawsuit of this case, and on June 24, 2014, C took a telephone call with the plaintiff's employee and took a look at how C was informed and sealed by the plaintiff's employee.
d.the tax;