beta
Text
1. A notary public against the Plaintiff of Defendant B, D, Law Firm D, July 29, 2016, and Promissory Notes No. 543, dated 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 29, 2016, F representing the Plaintiff issued a promissory note of KRW 200 million at the face value as of October 29, 2016, one of the joint issuers A, and the due date, to Defendant B, and the notary public accepting compulsory execution under the aforesaid promissory note was also preparing a notarial deed of Promissory Notes No. 543, No. 543, 2016.
B. On August 31, 2016, F, representing the Plaintiff, issued to Defendant C a promissory note of KRW 40,000,000, a joint issuer A, and a par value of KRW 40,000,00,000,000, which is payable at sight of the due date. On the same day, a notary public accepting compulsory execution based on the aforesaid promissory note was also drafted in the notarial Deed No. 554, 2016.
[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 5 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. In light of the overall purport of the statement and pleading as to the cause of the claim, the following facts are established: (a) as of July 2, 2016, F forged the meeting list, list of shareholders, and written resolution in lieu of the general meeting of shareholders of the Plaintiff Company necessary for the Plaintiff to dismiss G, who is the Plaintiff’s internal director, and H, who is the representative director, as of July 2, 2016, and appoint F as one in-house director; and (b) the Jeju District Court submitted the above documents to the public official in charge of being aware of the above forgery and made such false entry. According to the above facts of recognition, F was not authorized to represent the Plaintiff; (c) as at the time of the issuance of each bill, each of the above bills was issued by a person without the power of representation; and (d) as such, compulsory execution against the Plaintiff by the Defendant based on each of the above notarial deeds should be denied.
B. The Defendants’ defense is a bona fide third party to whom each of the above bills was issued with knowledge that the F has no power of representation, and thus there is no power of representation in accordance with Articles 39 and 395 of the Commercial Act.