손해배상(자)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following modifications or additions. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Supplementary or supplementary parts] The third part of the judgment of the court of first instance is added as follows.
The plaintiff asserts that the second written agreement (No. 3-1) was a blank at the time when the plaintiff affixed his/her seal, and the remaining contents were written in the Chinese language, and the plaintiff did not know the contents, and there was no explanation from the defendant about the contents of the written agreement, and thus, the validity cannot be recognized.
A private document is presumed to be authentic when the signature, seal, or seal of the principal or of his/her agent is affixed (Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act). In cases where it is acknowledged that the person who prepared the private document has signed, sealed, or affixed a seal on the private document in question, in other circumstances, barring special circumstances, such as the reversal of such presumption by a reflective document, the authenticity of the entire document shall be presumed to have been established.
In addition, if the authenticity of a seal imprint, etc. is recognized, unless there are other special circumstances, the document may be presumed to have been signed, sealed, and affixed by the person under whose name the document was completed, and the document was first signed and sealed at the time when the whole or part of the document was not completed shall be deemed to belong to this example. Therefore, in order to reverse the presumption of the authenticity of the completed document, reasonable reasons and indirect counter-proof, etc. are needed.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da11406, Apr. 11, 2003). Recognizing that this case’s return to the instant case, health class, and the Plaintiff’s signature and seal on the second agreement, the second agreement is recognized.