The court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff’s signature on the side of the Plaintiff’s seal affixed on the receipt of this case is not the Plaintiff’s body; (b) on the day of the instant sales contract, the Defendant remitted KRW 21 million to G; (c) however, G withdraws KRW 135 million to the Plaintiff; (d) issued a cashier’s checks equivalent to KRW 80 million in face value; (c) G received a writ of summons at the court below three times; and (d) did not appear as a witness even after the decision of an administrative fine was made; and (e) the Defendant did not submit other evidence to recognize that G paid KRW 120 million in face value to the Plaintiff; and (e) according to such fact of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the sales contract of this case was a false statement of KRW 80 million which was received by G at the time of the Plaintiff’s affixing the receipt of this case’s KRW 20 million,000,000,000,0000.

However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

If the authenticity of the seal imprinted on a private document is withdrawn by his/her seal, barring special circumstances, the authenticity of the seal imprinted is presumed to have been created, i.e., the act of affixing the seal based on the will of the person who prepared the private document, barring special circumstances. Once the authenticity of the seal imprinted is presumed, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been created pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da59122, Feb. 11, 2003). If the authenticity of the portion of the seal imprinted is recognized, the document can be presumed to have been signed by the person who signed the document while the entire document was completed, barring any other special circumstances. The circumstance that only the person who signed the document was first affixed with the whole or part of the document at that time is deemed to fall under this case. Thus, if it is intended to reverse the capacity to presume the authenticity of the document as a complete document, evidence such as reasonable grounds and indirect counter-proof, etc.

The judgment below rejected the authenticity of the receipt of this case on the premise that the Plaintiff’s seal was affixed first, among the receipts of this case, under the condition that the Plaintiff’s seal was not completed. If such circumstances were to be followed by the above legal principles, there is a need for reasonable grounds and evidence to support the presumption of the authenticity as the completion document of the receipt of this case. However, the facts cited in the reasoning of the judgment below are related to the penology of the receipt of this case, or to the payment of the purchase price or the absence of G’s witness, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s seal should first be affixed at the time of completion of the receipt of this case. Rather, the location and attitude of the items, amount, main body, signature, and seal, etc. indicated in the receipt of this case cannot be deemed to be harmful to the nature of the Plaintiff’s receipt of this case, and the main text of the above receipts of this case is difficult to accept in light of the Plaintiff’s reasonable grounds for rejection of the Plaintiff’s receipt of this case’s signature and seal as well as the receipts of this case’s receipt.

① Prior to the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff did not have a general amnesty with G as an agent of the Defendant or the Defendant.

② It is an exceptional case where the Plaintiff made a verbal promise to the effect that, inasmuch as the Plaintiff did not prepare any balance of 'unfriendly G’s 'unfriendlyly related' without being paid more than half of the purchase price amounting to KRW 20 million, and issued all documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership, such as a certificate of seal imprint, to the effect that he/she would immediately transfer money.

③ On June 13, 2003, the Plaintiff did not request the Defendant to pay the remaining trade amount for about seven years and five months from the time of filing a criminal complaint against the Defendant after the instant sales contract until November 2010, and there was no record that the Plaintiff demanded the payment of the remaining amount to G. However, it is difficult to obtain from the empirical rule that the Plaintiff did not demand the payment of the remaining amount to KRW 120 million to the buyer for a long time without any kind of relationship, while the Plaintiff provided a verbal promise to pay the said remaining amount without any kind of relationship.

④ In the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 200 million as a lump sum payment on June 13, 2003, which is the date of the contract (this case’s sales contract was forged. However, as long as the Plaintiff’s seal imprint, which is the title holder, is recognized as being due to his seal imprint, the Plaintiff’s act of affixing a seal is presumed to be based on his intent, and the Plaintiff’s act of affixing a seal against the Plaintiff’s will cannot be found to have been conducted, and the authenticity of the contract cannot be rejected. Furthermore, if the instant sales contract was forged as alleged by the Plaintiff, there is no disposition document indicating that the purchase price was KRW 20 million in the instant sales contract, and eventually, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 200 million in oral form between the Plaintiff and G. Thus, it is difficult to accept in light of the relationship between the Plaintiff and G, and the amount of the purchase price was established, barring any special circumstances, and thus, the Plaintiff received the entire payment from the Defendant or the Defendant’s agent of the instant sales contract.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the admissibility of the receipt of this case on the ground that the presumption of authenticity was broken in the completion document, and rejected the defendant's assertion that the sales contract of this case was lawfully rescinded because it did not pay part of the purchase price to the plaintiff. In this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of the document's authenticity, by violating logical and empirical rules and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. Therefore, the court below's judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for

Justices Shin Jae-young in charge

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Kim Gin-young