[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which recognized the authenticity of the certificate solely on the ground that although there is a doubt about the authenticity of the certificate of sale as to forest land, the judicial scrivener, as indicated in the certificate, is recognized as an existence in the region at the time of preparation of the certificate of sale

Whether the authenticity of a document is established or not shall be determined by the court based on free evaluation, based on all the evidentiary materials and all the arguments. In light of the fact that the authenticity of a document, if the authenticity is recognized, the existence of the declaration of intent and its contents should be recognized in accordance with the contents of the document, unless there is any counter-proof as clear and acceptable to deny the contents of the statement (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da29254 delivered on April 8, 2003, etc.).

The court below acknowledged the facts based on the adopted evidence, and found the following facts. In light of the contents of the sale certificate held by the plaintiff 1 (a evidence No. 1; hereinafter "the sale certificate of this case") and the timing and circumstances of the destruction of cadastral records and restoration of cadastral records as to the forest of this case, the court below held that the registration certificate of this case was destroyed after the transfer of ownership was completed on August 12, 1942 (the " August 20, 1947" in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance), which is the date of registration of transfer of ownership from the deceased university-industry for the forest of this case, under the name of Hong Span, unless there are other special circumstances, after the registration of transfer of ownership was completed. Thus, as to the defendant's assertion that the sale certificate of this case was forged, the sale certificate of this case was made around 1940, and the defendant's assertion that the sale certificate of this case had no reason to acknowledge it in light of the defendant's statement No. 3, which is the judicial seal No. 1940.

However, according to the records, a sale certificate (No. B. 2) stating that the forest land of this case was purchased from 1936 on Sep. 7, 1936 by Hong Chang-gun, which was sold to Hong Chang-gun, was attached with 3 foot stamp at the time while the purchase price was stated 80 won. According to the Land Survey Book, the owner of the land of this case 233 is stated as an electric line, not for gambling use, which was entered as the place of residence, with the above 10 foot-gun, which was entered as the 20 foot-gun, which was entered as the 60 foot-gun, which was entered as the 1st of the above sale certificate (No. 2) and the 1st of the above sale certificate of the forest of this case, which was entered as the 3th of the above sale certificate of the forest of this case, and the 1st of the above sale certificate of the forest of this case on May 29, 194, which was entered as the 7th of the above sale certificate of the forest of this case.

According to the circumstances, it is difficult to readily conclude that Park Jong-chul used in this case as the genuine owner of the forest of this case because the authenticity of the sale certificate (No. 2) that corresponds to the fact that Park Jong-sik purchased the forest of this case from Kim Jong-sung was not proven, and it cannot be said that the authenticity of the sale certificate of this case, which corresponds to the fact that Park Jong-sik sold the forest of this case to the Hong-ro, is also doubtful, and there is no doubt about the establishment of the deed of this case. In addition, in the appraisal document prepared by the appraiser Go Jong-ju, it is difficult to find that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the law of this case by finding that the certificate of this case was prepared in the light of the facts that "No. 1" was prepared in the light of the quality used in the certificate of sale (No. 1) and the writing and sealed seal affixed to the certificate of this case, not based on the basis, but by the comparison of the official seal affixed by the relevant Cheong-man, it is difficult to conclude that the certificate of this case was prepared in the 194th of sale of forest of this case.

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 by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)