[2] The degree of deliberation required to acknowledge the authenticity of the disposal document

[3] The scope of "the overall purport of pleading" to be taken into account by the court in determining whether the factual basis is true

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in this case where the authenticity of the loan certificate (No. 1) in the name of the Defendants is an important issue, the court below acknowledged the fact that Defendant 4 affixed the seal on the testimony of Nonparty 1, the witness of the court of first instance, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, and determined that the authenticity of the document was presumed to be established as a whole because there is no dispute over the remaining Defendants’ seal imprint portion. The court below determined as follows: (a) there is no dispute between the parties or may be acknowledged as a whole in light of the overall purport of the pleading in the “No. 1, No. 1, No. 1, and part of the testimony of Nonparty 1, the witness of the court of first instance (part of the expressions appear to be erroneous in writing)”; (b) there was discussion about the method of purchasing the land in which the Defendants decided to purchase the land in this case, and (c) it was difficult for the Defendants to apply for permission for development activities with the seal imprint affixed by the Defendants, and (c) it was difficult for the Defendants 2 and Nonparty 4, etc.

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

A. If, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the seal imprinted on a private document is presumed to have been made, barring any special circumstance, if the seal imprinted on the private document’s seal imprinted by the seal imprinted, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been made pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. Once the authenticity of the seal imprinted is presumed to have been made, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been made pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, inasmuch as the authenticity of the seal imprinted is presumed to have been actually presumed to have been caused by the intent of the holder of the title deed, if the person disputing the authenticity of the seal imprinted proves circumstances that the act of affixing the seal imprinted by the intent of the holder of the title deed was made, the presumption of the authenticity is broken (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Da462, Jun. 13, 1997; 2002Da59122, Feb. 1

In addition, in cases where the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, in view of the fact that the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the contents of the document should be recognized, unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that denies the contents of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da34666, Sept. 6, 2002).

On the other hand, the court shall decide whether the facts alleged are true in accordance with logical and empirical rules, based on the principle of social justice and equity, by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence into account (Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act). The whole purport of the arguments here is all circumstances and litigation materials that were present in the proceedings of pleadings, excluding the result of the examination of evidence, and the materials submitted after the closing of arguments do

B. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following circumstances.

(1) Around December 2005, Non-party 3 and 1, who had been operating the East-dong Development Co., Ltd., organized a consultative body with the aim of purchasing land and establishing factories, etc. on the land. The 10 individuals, enterprises, including the Defendants, were determined to purchase the land of this case and discussed the methods of securing the down payment. Thereafter, the loan certificate in the name of the Defendants was drafted as of January 10, 2006. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to purchase the land of this case on January 19, 2006 (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”), and the said 10 members were the buyers, and the Plaintiff was indicated as the Plaintiff’s representative.

The Defendants were in the process of purchasing the instant land through Nonparty 3 and 1 and applying for permission for factory establishment. Therefore, the Defendants did not know the Plaintiff on the preparation of the instant loan certificate and on January 2006, which was at the time of concluding the instant sales contract.

(2) The loan certificate of this case was accompanied by the Defendant’s certificate of personal seal impression. Among them, with regard to Defendant 2’s certificate of personal seal impression, only the certificate of personal seal impression issued on June 27, 2006 was presented as evidence in the argument to the effect that it was attached to the loan certificate of this case. The Plaintiff presented the certificate of personal seal impression issued on December 20, 2005 to the court below for the reason that it was attached to the loan certificate of this case after the closing of argument of the court below. The Plaintiff presented the certificate of personal seal impression issued on December 20, 205 to the court below for the reason that it was attached to the loan certificate of this case. However, the court below deemed that the documents were submitted after the closing of argument, which was presented after the closing of argument, and did not fall under the litigation material that was presented at the pleading

The date of issuance of the remaining Defendants’ certificate of the personal seal impression also differs from October 17, 2005, December 2, 2005, and January 9, 2006 (the date of issuance of the certificate of the personal seal impression issued by Defendant 2 submitted to the court below after the closing of the original trial is as seen above). In addition, some of them are at least at a time from January 10, 2006, which is the date on which the certificate of the personal seal impression was written on the loan certificate of this case. In addition, it is different from that of Defendant 4’s personal seal impression attached to the certificate of the original court.

Considering such circumstances, it is questionable whether the aforementioned Defendants’ certificate of personal seal impression was issued for the preparation of the instant loan deed, considering that the content of the instant loan deed is a loan of 250 million won or more, and is also agreed to return the amount of money according to the circumstances.

(3) The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff was delivered by Nonparty 1 and 3 in the form of the seal affixed by the Defendants, and both Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 3 testified in the first instance trial that the Defendants did not see that they were affixed the instant loan certificate. Nonparty 1 testified to the effect that “Nonindicted 2 was affixed the seal on the instant loan certificate and affixed it to Nonparty 3.” While Nonparty 3 testified to the effect that “Nonindicted 2 was affixed the seal on the instant loan certificate, Nonparty 3 personally affixed the seal and affixed the seal to the Defendant,” Nonparty 1 testified to the effect that “Nonindicted 3 was affixed the instant loan certificate to Nonparty 1, and Nonparty 3 was affixed the instant loan certificate to himself, and there is a little difference in the process of signing the seal affixed by the Defendants on the instant loan certificate, and the background is not clear.

In addition, Nonparty 1 testified that “the process in which Nonparty 4’s seal affixed to the name of Defendant 4 was entirely gathered,” and as long as so, it is doubtful whether Nonparty 1’s statement can be immediately acknowledged the fact of Defendant 4’s seal as shown in the lower court’s judgment. After the closing of argument in the lower court, the Plaintiff presented the police statement as to Nonparty 2, as indicated in the evidence No. 11, to the lower court. Based on this, the lower court appears to have acknowledged the fact that “ Nonparty 2, an employee of the same Doctrine Development Co., Ltd., was present as a witness for the case accused of the Plaintiff due to the crime of forging a private document, etc. and stated that Defendant 4 directly affixed his personal seal to the loan certificate of this case.” However, this document is also submitted after the closing of argument, and it is not a litigation material that was presented after the closing of argument

C. Examining the above circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, since there is room for doubt as to whether the Defendants’ seal affixed to the instant loan deed was affixed according to the Defendants’ intent, it is difficult to conclude that the authenticity is still presumed to be established. Nevertheless, the lower court’s determination that the Defendants’ objection to the evidence was rejected, and that the instant loan certificate was duly established after the closing of argument, and that the Defendants were obligated to return the loan certificate to the Plaintiff is not erroneous by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment (According to the record, since litigation materials concerning the establishment of the instant loan deed were submitted not to a large number after the closing of argument in the lower court, considering these litigation materials submitted after the closing of argument in the lower court, even if it was determined that the authenticity of the instant loan deed was established differently from the conclusion of the first instance court, the lower court should have the opportunity to dispute the Defendants by resumption of the pleading and giving the said litigation materials to the Defendants). The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)