logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.11 2016가단154305
증서진부확인
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that the Defendant and C exercise the Plaintiff’s right to claim transfer and takeover contract (No. 1; hereinafter “instant contract”) written in the forged claim purport, and sought confirmation from the Plaintiff.

2. The lawsuit for confirmation of the authenticity of the lawsuit in this case is a lawsuit to confirm whether the contents recorded in the document are consistent with the objective truth, and it is not allowed to bring an action for confirmation of whether the contents recorded in the document are consistent with the objective truth, as it is a lawsuit to confirm whether the document solely proves the rights or legal relations have been actually prepared according to the will of the person in whose name the document was prepared (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu4710, Feb. 14, 1989). In addition, in order to be lawful, the benefit to seek confirmation of the authenticity of the document should be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da53714, Dec. 14, 2001). If a lawsuit is already instituted on the legal relations to be proved in writing, the dispute resolution can be conducted, and thus, a separate lawsuit for confirmation of the authenticity of the document is not an interest in confirmation, barring special circumstances.

(2) The parties to the contract of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da29290, 29306, Jun. 14, 2007). However, the parties to the contract of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da29290, Jun. 14, 2007; 2005Da318506, Jun. 14, 2007; 2007; 3) the parties to the contract of this case have filed a lawsuit claiming the return of down payment against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant separate lawsuit”) with the Seoul Central District Court 2016Ga318509, and the parties to the contract of this case may be acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2.

arrow