logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.06.28 2017가단22588
차량구입자금반환
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 18,800,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from June 17, 2017 to June 28, 2018.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that sells used cars.

B was employed as an employee on January 19, 2017 by joining the Plaintiff.

B. On January 19, 2017, the Plaintiff and B drafted a letter of employment agreement (Evidence A1) and a letter of financial guarantee (Evidence A2) prepared on the same day, the Defendant’s seal imprint is affixed to the name of the Defendant and the Defendant himself/herself issued on January 9, 2017.

The above financial guarantee statement states that "The defendant, who is the guarantor, promises to jointly and severally assume all civil and criminal responsibilities for all damages incurred to the plaintiff and the customer due to the acts violating the Automobile Management Act and intentional, negligent, negligent, embezzlement, and Automobile Management Act while in office as the guarantor."

C. On January 20, 2017, B, the following day of employment, stating that “B shall transfer the ownership of seven used cars sold in its name in the used car trading company, which worked prior to the face of the money, to the Plaintiff,” and it did not receive KRW 47 million from the Plaintiff and used it for other purposes and did not return it to the Plaintiff.

B above C.

A total of 520,5100,000 won, including the facts of a port, was prosecuted by Suwon District Court 2017 High Court 2252, and was sentenced to imprisonment on July 14, 2017, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it was.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In regard to the Plaintiff’s claim for damages of KRW 47 million against the Defendant, who is a fidelity guarantor, the Defendant did not conclude a contract for the fidelity guarantee with the Plaintiff, and the financial guarantee certificate No. 2 is merely a forged document.

(b) If the seal imprinted by the holder of a title deed affixed on a private document is affixed with his/her seal, the authenticity of the seal shall be presumed, unless there are special circumstances, and once the seal imprint is authentic.

arrow