1. A private document is presumed to be authentic when there is a signature, seal, or seal affixed by the person himself/herself or his/her agent (Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act). In cases where the formation of the portion of the seal affixed by the person who prepared the private document is recognized, barring special circumstances, such as the reversal of such presumption by counter-proof, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to be established, barring any such other circumstances as the whole. In order to reverse the presumption of authenticity as a completion document, reasonable grounds and indirect counter-proofs, etc. are needed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da11406, Apr. 11, 2003; 2011Da62977, Nov. 10, 2011).

2. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveal the following facts.

A. The Defendant recognized that the Defendant’s seal affixed on a sales contract (No. 4-1) dated December 7, 2008 on each of the instant land is identical with the Defendant’s seal imprint certificate.

B. The defendant delivered a certificate of the personal seal impression issued on December 4, 2008 and a transcript of the defendant's resident registration card issued on December 4, 2004 to the plaintiff or E around that time. The defendant stated the plaintiff's name, resident registration number, and address in the column for real estate purchaser of the above certificate of the personal seal impression.

C. Around February 26, 2008, the Defendant purchased each of the instant land from the Korea Rural Community & Agricultural Corporation, 19,865,000 won, out of the purchase price that the Defendant paid by the Korea Rural Community & Agricultural Corporation, was actually borne by the Plaintiff. The Defendant agreed to pay subsidies of KRW 59,625,00 and interest thereon over a 30-year period, and the Defendant set up a collateral security right with the Korea Rural Community & Agricultural Corporation as the secured obligation. The Plaintiff paid all the Defendant’s obligation to repay the subsidies to the Korea Rural Community & Agricultural Corporation by subrogation four times from January 15, 2010 to January 20, 2014.

D. Although the fact that the defendant and the plaintiff's husband conspireds with each of the lands of this case that the defendant did not actually intend to leave the farmer's house, Eul borrowed the defendant's name, purchased the farmer's house, and repaid the subsidy in installments, the plaintiff's employee of the Korea Rural Community & Agricultural Corporation entered into a contract to purchase the land with the defendant's intention as if the defendant purchased the land with the intention of the farmer's house as the professional farmer, and was convicted of the defendant's 59,625,00 won by receiving the farmland purchase fund from the Korea Rural Community & Agricultural Corporation, and the judgment became final and conclusive, and the defendant recognized the crime in the above criminal case.

E. The Defendant filed a complaint with the purport that the Plaintiff’s husband, E, her husband, exercised the sales contract on December 7, 2008 by forging the sales contract, but was subject to a disposition by an investigative agency to the effect that he was guilty.

3. Examining the following circumstances revealed based on the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the circumstance cited by the court below alone is insufficient to reverse the presumption that the sales contract of December 7, 2008 concerning each of the instant lands was made based on the Defendant’s intent. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the above sales contract was made based on the Defendant’s intent.

A. The court below accepted the defendant's assertion as it is and recognized that E had the defendant's seal imprint for a period from November 2008, but there is no objective ground to acknowledge it except the defendant's assertion.

B. The circumstance that the Plaintiff did not submit the data that the Plaintiff actually paid the purchase price for each of the instant lands to the Defendant cannot be deemed as the circumstance that, as seen earlier, the sales contract was forged on December 7, 2008 in that the Defendant borne the Plaintiff at the time of purchasing each of the instant lands from the Korea Rural Community & Agricultural Corporation, and that the Plaintiff subrogated for all of the secured obligations (the amount equivalent to subsidies) of the right to collateral security after the sales contract was concluded. Even though the Defendant did not have any reason to sell the instant land again to the Plaintiff on December 7, 2008, in light of the criminal facts recognized in the relevant criminal case, it is difficult to view that the sales contract was forged on December 7, 2008. Other circumstances cited by the lower court are reasonable and objective circumstances to presume that the sales contract was prepared on December 7, 2008, based on the Defendant’s intent.

4. Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s primary claim on the grounds that the presumption of the authenticity of the sales contract dated December 7, 2008 was broken solely based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the formation of the transfer of private documents, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

5. 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 Kim Yong-deok

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Park Jong-young