1. If, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the official seal imprinted on a private document is presumed to be established, barring any special circumstance, if the authenticity of the official seal imprinted on the private document is presumed to be established. Once the authenticity of the official seal imprinted, the authenticity of the document is presumed to be established pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, the presumption that the act of affixing the seal is attributable to the will of the holder of the title deed is de facto presumed. Thus, if the person disputing the authenticity of the seal imprinted proves circumstances that the act of sealing the seal imprinted against the will of the holder of the title deed, the presumption of the authenticity of the official seal imprinted is broken if the court proves that the act of affixing the seal imprinted on a counter-proof basis is attributable to the will of the holder of the title deed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da462, Jun. 13, 1997; 2002Da59

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the defendant did not receive 80 million won out of the lease deposit of this case from the plaintiff, and there was no fact that the plaintiff agreed to reimburse the plaintiff for the expenses for interior works of the interior of the store of this case. Thus, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the grounds that all of the receipts of this case and the termination of the agreement of this case were forged, barring special circumstances, since the defendant's seal impression is affixed on the receipts of this case and the termination of the agreement of this case, the authenticity of the above document is presumed to be established, and the defendant's assertion alone does not seem to have paid the balance of the lease deposit of this case or it was impossible for the defendant to make an agreement identical with the contents of the above agreement.

3. However, it is difficult to accept such a determination by the lower court for the following reasons.

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, the following facts are revealed. 1) The receipts of this case are as follows: the Defendant’s total sum of KRW 80 million of the remainder of the lease deposit of this case.

4. The fact that the receipt was received from the Plaintiff on 27. 27. The amount and the date on which the addressee’s preparation was made is indicated in the printed receipt form, and there is the name and seal of C, the name and seal of the Defendant, the publisher, and the observer of C. Meanwhile, if the Plaintiff entered the instant store into an agreement with the Plaintiff to pay the Plaintiff the expenses for the interior works of the instant store when the Defendant leases the instant store to another person, all of the contents are written in blank, and the name and seal of C, the applicant, the Defendant’s name and seal, and the observer. The signature and seal of each of the above documents, including the name of the original, Defendant, and C, appears to be written by one person. There is no special dispute between the parties as to the fact that the book is not the Plaintiff or the Defendant, and according to the result of the written appraisal by appraiser D of the original judgment, the said pen is not written as the observer. Moreover, there is no evidence to recognize that C’s seal is written by C.

However, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant receipts and agreements were already completed only to the effect that it was received from C, and did not provide any explanation as to the specific process of preparation, such as who is the penmatic seal on each of the above documents, who is the original and the Defendant’s seal affixed, who actually participated in C at the time of preparation, whether C received each of the above documents from the Defendant, or who received them from other persons.

As such, this case’s receipt and the agreement 1st 5th 7th 2009 filed a complaint with the investigation agency on the charge of fraud on January 29, 2009 on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff, who prepared the instant agreement 4th 1st son and the observer, failed to provide any explanation as to the preparation process; and (b) the Plaintiff, who submitted the receipts, etc. as evidence, did not doubt whether the instant receipts, etc. were normally prepared according to the intention of the nominal owner; (c) the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Defendant and the Defendant regarding the instant receipt and the agreement 1st 5th 1st 1st 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

However, without confirming in advance whether a person who intends to operate a restaurant or a singing room can obtain a business license, he/she has invested more than KRW 400 million and leased the store and completed almost all the interior works.

The argument is not only difficult to believe that the business license was granted by the investigation agency, and it is difficult to find out that there was no application for fire-fighting inspection of the store of this case in the second half of 2007, and there was no problem about the permission for the business of the restaurant and singing room. As such, there was no particular problem about the permission for the business of this case. Thus, if most of the stories were completed as alleged by the plaintiff, it was not reasonable to suspend the construction of the above 70% of the entire part constructed by the investigation agency, and it was hard to view that the plaintiff was not able to seek money from the court below on July 2007, because it was difficult for the plaintiff to take charge of the above 70th anniversary of the fact that it was difficult for the plaintiff to take charge of the above 7th anniversary of the fact that the plaintiff was not able to claim for money from the 7th anniversary of the fact that the plaintiff was not able to claim for the remaining 7th day of the lease contract of this case. The plaintiff's remaining 270 billion won.

B. Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, as to the fact that the Defendant’s seal affixed to the instant receipt and the sign of agreement was printed out according to the Defendant’s intention, the nominal holder.

Since a considerable doubt can only be said to have been raised, the presumption of the authenticity of the receipt, etc. of this case has to be broken.

Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the premise that the authenticity of the entire receipts and agreements in this case is presumed to have been established. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the authenticity of private documents, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence and exceeding the bounds of logical and empirical rules. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Lee In-bok et al.

Justices Park Young-young