Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”)

A. Article 356(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that, with respect to the result of the examination of the component of the People's Republic of China's Republic of China's entry and departure examination and quarantine (the "CI Q, if it is deemed that a public official has been prepared in the course of performing his duties according to the method and purport of preparation of documents, it shall be presumed that the document is a genuine public document." Paragraph (3) provides that "The provisions of paragraph (1) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the document recognized as having been prepared by a foreign public agency."

Therefore, in order to be presumed that a document submitted by a party as an official document of a foreign country is a genuine official document, the method of document submitted by the party should be in conformity with the method of official document prepared by a foreign public institution in the course of performing its duties.

It is desirable for the court to obtain the certification or confirmation of the mission of the Republic of Korea located in a foreign country in which the official document was prepared when examining whether such requirements are met, but this is a matter to be determined by free evaluation, so it may be recognized by taking into account other evidence and the purport

(See Supreme Court Decision 2016Da205373 Decided December 15, 2016, etc.) The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that each of the CI Q drafted documents submitted by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) was presumed an official document prepared in a genuine manner.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine.