And later on:
"Once again, almost ten years have passed or nine years, I see. It's a document that looks like it's fake, I don't know. That's not my signature. I don't sign like that, and it wasn't signed before."
(In this regard, see p. 42, lines 26-34 of the minutes of the hearing of April 19, 2023)).
- This testimony of Attorney Amar was able to raise very clear question marks regarding the plaintiff's version with regard to the very signing of this document or the conduct of the parties on the basis of it, and the evidentiary weight that could be attributed to this document was very limited.
On the other hand, defendant 2 himself did not present to me any other agreement, although he claimed to exist, regarding the parties' agreements as to the manner in which the purchase/sale of the rights in Shira would be carried out. Even this way of conducting Mr. Alfasi was intended to arouse discomfort.
- However, all of this is compounded by the simple fact that it was the plaintiff who chose to present a separation document in which he confirms his undertaking to pay Mr. Alfasi the sum of ILS 600,000, for and for the purpose of purchasing the shares of Shira.
- I found the plaintiff's version regarding the actual payment of the sum of ILS 650,000 to be a version that is substantial difficult to adopt, especially in view of the multiplicity of versions regarding the purpose and purpose of paying those sums as detailed below:
- As stated, the plaintiff chose to attach to his affidavit the share transfer agreement, which indicates that the sum of ILS 600,000 should have been paid for the shares.
- However, in his testimony, the plaintiff claimed that: "... ILS 650,000 for the sale of shares in the company never existed and was never created" and this sum was actually paid for what he defined as "the dissolution of the partnership" (p. 45, paras. 16-17 and p. 46, paras. 3-4 of the minutes of the hearing of December 7, 2022).
- The plaintiff's testimony also revealed that a sum of ILS 600,000 was paid, and then an additional ILS 50,000 was paid by way of the transfer of goods (see P. 45, paras. 16-17 of the minutes of the hearing of December 7, 2022).
- However, the plaintiff subsequently added and testified that Mr. Alfasi received a sum of ILS 200,000 in cash and another ILS 450,000 in goods (ibid., paras. 28-29).
- Even with regard to the later argument regarding the receipt of the sum of ILS 200,000 in cash and the balance by way of supplying goods, the plaintiff's version was found to be varied.
Thus, for example, the plaintiff claimed that Mr. Alfasi himself took the sum of ILS 200,000 from the partnership accounts that he managed (p. 46 s. 18-21 of the minutes of the hearing), and then he further testified that out of the sum of ILS 200,000, part was transferred in cash and some through the bank account, and that he did not remember dates (p. 46, s. 22 and p. 47, s. 4-6 of the minutes of the hearing of December 7, 2022).