presumption and reversal of the authenticity of seals and documents

If the stamp image of the person in whose name the document was affixed is affixed, barring any special circumstance, it shall be presumed that the authenticity of the stamp image is created, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person in whose name the document was written, and once the authenticity of the stamp image is presumed, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed in accordance with Article 329 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, if it is confirmed that the act of affixing the seal was carried out by a person other than the person in whose name the document was written, the person in whose name the document was written shall bear the burden of proving that the act of

Article 329 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 2 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-

Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and two others

Attorney Yoon Jae-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 93Na29760 delivered on June 24, 1994

The part of the judgment below against the defendant shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul District Court.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal against the dismissed portion shall be assessed against the plaintiff.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

The judgment of the court below as to the point out of the theory of lawsuit is just in light of the relation of the evidence as stated by the judgment below, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law by mistake of facts against the rules of evidence without making a proper deliberation as to the process of the lawsuit, and if the facts are as determined by the court below, the plaintiff, an insurance company, in accordance with the provisions of the warranty insurance and general terms of contract for the supply of goods, compensates for damages suffered by the insured buyer because the buyer of the contract for the repair of defects did not perform the seller's duty of repair under the contract for the supply of goods, and unless the buyer of the contract for the supply of goods requested the repair of defects against the seller, the contract for the repair of defects cannot claim the warranty insurance for the defect. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and there

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

2. We examine the defendant's grounds of appeal.

The First and Second Grounds for Appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the authenticity of the seal imprint affixed under the defendant's name is recognized based on the result of the appraiser's appraisal of the seal imprint conducted by the non-party 1, the court below recognized the fact that the above non-party 2 entered into a joint and several surety contract on behalf of the plaintiff under the above contract guarantee contract where the non-party 2 received a supply of the work for the well-faith remodeling from the non-party 2 (a contract guarantee agreement) and the non-party 2 received from the non-party 3, the non-party 2 (hereinafter referred to as "the non-party 2"), and the non-party 5 entered into the contract where the non-party 2 is the insured of the three-dimensional batteries batteries, according to the above contract guarantee contract.

If the stamp image of the person in whose name the document was affixed is printed out by his seal, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the stamp image shall be presumed to have been created, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person in whose name the document was written. Once the authenticity of the stamp image is presumed, the authenticity of the entire document shall be presumed in accordance with Article 329 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, if it is proved that the act of affixing the stamp is carried out by a person other than the person in whose name the document was written, the person in whose name the document was affixed shall be liable to prove that the act of affixing the stamp is based on a legitimate title delegated by the person in whose name the document was written (see Supreme Court Decisions 8Da6815, Apr. 25, 198; 9Da2470, Mar.

However, according to the result of the appraiser non-party 1's appraisal (record 303 pages), since the defendant's seal stamped Gap 2-2 can be found to have been present by the defendant's seal, the above seal shall be presumed to have been present by the defendant's intention, barring any special circumstances. However, according to the records, the above non-party 2 was not the defendant himself/herself, and the above non-party 2 affixed the above seal as his/her representative's qualification (this point does not conflict between the parties). Since it is obvious that the defendant did not have granted the right to conclude the above contract, it cannot be deemed that the authenticity of the above letter was established immediately only with the result of the appraiser's appraisal by the non-party 1. The plaintiff who submitted the document cannot be presumed to have been presumed to have been presented by Article 329 of the Civil Procedure Act unless he/she proves that the above non-party 2 had the right to act on behalf of the plaintiff. Thus, even after examining the records, there is no obvious evidence that the above non-party 2 obtained the right to conclude the above guarantee.

Nevertheless, the court below acknowledged that the above non-party 2's right of representation or the defendant's seal affixed to the above documentary evidence is authentic without any evidence corresponding thereto, and it is presumed that the whole document was authentic in accordance with the above Article 2 of the above Act. Thus, the above non-party 2 did not state the grounds or erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the presumption of the authenticity of a private document, and therefore, it is reasonable to point this out.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the other grounds of appeal, among the judgment below, the part of the judgment below against the defendant failure shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul District Court. The plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal against the part against which the appeal is dismissed shall be assessed against the

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)