The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Gangseo branch court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Since documentary evidence is a method of proving facts requiring proof by using the author’s intent expressed in the document as evidence, it should first be revealed that the document was prepared by the person’s will alleged as the author. If such formal evidence is not recognized, it cannot be used as evidence, and then, the substantial probative value of the author’s intent should be determined by how much it is useful as evidence of facts requiring proof.

In particular, in recognizing the authenticity of a disposal document, due to the fact that the authenticity of the disposal document is recognized, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof evidence that the content of the document is denied, the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document should be recognized.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da9655, May 26, 2011). In a case where the other party contests the authenticity of a private document, the party who submitted the document must prove it.

(2) On November 8, 1994, the court below’s reasoning and records revealed that the Plaintiff’s prior judgment against the Defendant was transferred to G Co., Ltd., and the Defendant submitted a written notice of acceptance of the claim (No. 2; hereinafter “the instant certificate of acceptance of the claim”). However, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim under the prior judgment against the Defendant was transferred to G Co., Ltd., and submitted a written notice of acceptance of the claim (hereinafter “the instant certificate of acceptance of the claim”). However, the Plaintiff’s seal affixed on the instant certificate of acceptance of the claim does not constitute the seal used by the Plaintiff, but rather, the Plaintiff

In order to recognize the fact of assignment of claims, etc. in accordance with the legal principles of the Supreme Court precedents as seen earlier, the authenticity of the instant claim acquisition certificate should be proved first, and the burden of proof is to the defendant who is the presenter, but the record is also examined.