In case the authenticity of a document is presumed to have been made pursuant to Article 329 of the Civil Procedure Act, the extent of probative value of the forgery.

Where it is recognized that the stamp image of the person who prepared the document is a stamp image affixed on the document, the document shall be presumed to have been affixed by the person who prepared the document, unless there are special circumstances, to have been affixed the stamp image affixed on the document, and once it is presumed to have been authenticity of the document pursuant to Article 329 of the Civil Procedure Act, so it is presumed that the document is prepared with the qualification of the person who prepared the document, the person who asserts it must actively prove it, and the probative value of the document proving the facts of defense

Article 329 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Seo Young-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na1880 delivered on February 20, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

1. As to ground of appeal No. 1

If it is recognized that the stamp image of the person who prepared the document is a stamp image affixed on the document, the stamp image shall be presumed to have been affixed by the person who prepared the document, unless there are special circumstances, and once it is presumed, the authenticity of the document shall be presumed to have been established in accordance with Article 329 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In this case, as long as the defendant recognizes that the seal affixed under the name of the representative director of the defendant company Gap affixed with the evidence No. 2 (j) is identical with the official seal of the representative director of the defendant company, the document cannot be presumed to have been made on August 10, 1984 as stated above, and it cannot be presumed to have been made on September 21, 1984 by the non-party representative director of the defendant company as the representative director of the defendant company, and it shall be proved that the non-party, who was released from the office of representative director of the defendant company as the representative director of the defendant company, was made on August 10, 1984, retroactively from the date of preparation on August 10, 1984. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that only the evidence that the defendant was affixed with the evidence, and recognized the establishment of Gap evidence No. 2 pursuant to the above presumption.

2. As to ground of appeal No. 2

The court below's decision is justified in recognizing the fact that the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff, such as the statement of the above Gap No. 2, which is the adopted evidence and the disposal document, and the statement of the above Gap No. 2, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the incomplete hearing.

3. All arguments are without merit, and the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)