Evidence of a disposal document which is recognized to have been authentic

When the formation of a disposal document is recognized as authentic, the existence of the content of the legal act must be recognized unless there is a clear and acceptable ground to deny the content thereof.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Meu571 Decided July 10, 1984

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

The director of the Southern Incheon District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu1043 delivered on December 27, 1983

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the disposition of this case by the plaintiff was legitimate on March 28, 1980 based on the following facts: the non-party's total contract amounting to 245,00,000 won for new construction of ○○○ Automobile Maintenance Factory located in the Nam-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City ( Address omitted); and the non-party's total contract amounting to 40,946,822 won among them shall be supplied by the non-party, and the above non-party's contract amount shall be deducted from the above contract amount; therefore, since the price supplied by the plaintiff from the above non-party is 204,053,178 won after deducting the above contract amount from the above contract amount, the defendant's disposition of this case was made on the ground that the non-party's purchase of necessary materials by changing the above contract amount from May 30, 1980 and deducted from the above contract amount, the non-party's tax base amount should be deducted from the above contract amount.

However, as long as the contents of the disposition document are recognized as genuine and acceptable, the existence of a juristic act in its contents should be recognized unless there is any clear and acceptable ground to deny its contents. According to the contents of Eul evidence No. 6 (amended Contract), which is the disposition document, even though it can be recognized that a partial change of the contents of the above contract between the plaintiff and the non-party was made, evidence which the court below rejected the above evidence No. 6, which the court below received as evidence from the above non-party after the conclusion of the above revised contract, or requested the plaintiff to pay the above non-party the overdue wage, broc costs, etc., or the material price wage, etc., which the plaintiff would pay to the above non-party even after the conclusion of the above revised contract, or that there is no evidence No. 7-1 (No. 7) or No. 285 (No. 78) or No. 88 (no. 1).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)