presumption and probative value of the authenticity of notarial documents prepared by an attorney-at-law of the joint law office authorized for notary or notarial affairs

In addition, in light of Articles 27, 30, 31, and 38 of the Notary Public Act, which provides that an attorney-at-law, a member of a joint law office authorized for notary public or notary affairs, shall, at the request of the client or his/her agent, voluntarily listen to the statement, his/her intent, and other facts tested, the authenticity of the document is presumed to be established pursuant to Article 327(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is a public document as a report document. In addition, in order to secure the authenticity of the reported matters, prior procedures such as confirmation of the client or his/her agent, certification of his/her power of attorney, etc., shall be followed before the preparation of the certificate, and then shall be subject to signature and seal of the tin after preparation, unless there is any evidentiary material to the contrary, the probative value shall be denied without permission

Article 327(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 74Do2715 Decided August 23, 1977 (Gong1977, 10247) (Gong1022 Decided November 23, 1990)

Attorney Han Han-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Kim head of the tax office

Gwangju High Court Decision 93Gu189 delivered on December 23, 1993

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in order to collect national taxes against Non-Party 1 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "non-party Co., Ltd."), the court below acknowledged the attachment of movables listed in the first list of the judgment of the court below in order to collect national taxes against the non-party 1 Co., Ltd., and judged that the plaintiff's attachment disposition on the movables of this case was unlawful on the premise that the plaintiff entered into a transfer for security by means of possession and alteration of the ownership of the movables of this case, Gap No. 5 (performance Contract) did not conflict with the establishment of the public portion, but the private portion cannot be used as evidence because there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the original portion, and rejected it on the ground that there is no other evidence to acknowledge

2. However, a performance contract (Evidence A) rejected by the court below, which cannot be admitted as evidence, shall be deemed as a notarial deed prepared by a notary public in accordance with its authority, not merely authenticated a deed signed by a private person, and it shall be deemed as a notarial deed executed by a notary public at the request of a notary public or a member of a joint law office authorized to handle notarial affairs, the statement directly heard by the notary public at the request of the client or his/her client, his/her title, and other experimental facts shall be deemed as a notarial document, so the authenticity shall be presumed to be established in accordance with Article 327(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

In addition, in order to secure the authenticity of the reported contents, the Notary Public Act provides that the procedures, such as the confirmation of the client or the substitute client and the verification of the right of representation, shall be conducted prior to the preparation of the deed, and after the preparation of the deed, it shall be signed and sealed by the heater (Articles 27, 30, 31, and 38 of the Notary Public Act). In light of this, unless there are any materials to oppose the credibility, the probative value shall be denied without permission and the fact-finding contrary to the statement shall not be conducted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 74Do2715, Aug. 23, 197; Supreme Court Decision 90Meu21022, Nov. 23, 190).

3. Therefore, the court below's rejection of the authenticity of the portion of the private document by viewing the above debt repayment contract as a document combining the public document and the private document and denying the authenticity of the contents without any reasonable explanation is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the admissibility of evidence of the notarial deed and its admissibility of evidence, and the argument to this extent is justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)