In a case where it is recognized that the seal imprint affixed to a document is a signature affixed to the name holder’s seal affixed to the document, barring special circumstances, if the act of signing and sealing the document is presumed to have been genuine based on the will of the name holder, that is, the act of signing and sealing the document is presumed to have been completed, and once the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been completed, the document is presumed to have been authentic in accordance with Article 329 of the Civil Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 81Da684, Aug. 24, 1982; 83Meu1843, Feb. 28, 1984). Thus, the court below recognized the fact that the document’s seal imprint affixed to the plaintiff’s name affixed to No. 4 (consultation) was reproduced by the plaintiff’s seal affixed to the document’s name and the document’s title holder’s seal affixed to the above document’s name cannot be presumed to have been forged, and there is a need to prove it against the plaintiff’s intent of forging 17.

According to the testimony of the first instance court and the lower court, the same witness, as the plaintiff's wife, issued the plaintiff's seal and certificate of seal impression to the defendant around April 27, 197 as necessary for his workplace relationship, and the defendant forged the above written agreement using it. The court of first instance stated that the defendant's wife obtained telephone from the defendant's wife and prepared two copies of the plaintiff's certificate of seal impression and sent it to the defendant's son as the plaintiff's seal (record 73), but the court of first instance stated that the defendant's wife had the defendant's wife and it was not consistent (Records 239 pages). Since the above witness's testimony is not consistent with the plaintiff's wife's condition, it is difficult to presume the authenticity of the above document to be established at the time of the plaintiff's new establishment of the land, which is the plaintiff's real estate and the building's new house's name, as the plaintiff's 7th anniversary of the above testimony of the above witness.

However, as seen earlier, after the Defendant confirmed the forgery of the above written agreement, the lower court only accepted the Plaintiff’s claim seeking cancellation by concluding that the part concerning the two-fifths shares of the Plaintiff’s inheritance shares in the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on the instant land is invalid, and that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on the instant land is valid in accordance with the substantive relations.

Therefore, the court below erred in the violation of the rules of evidence by misunderstanding the value judgment of evidence or recognizing facts without any evidence, and thereby disregarding the judgment of the parties' arguments, and it is obvious that this affected the judgment, and therefore, it is reasonable to point out this error.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)