beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. On May 8, 2015, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was a child of C in a de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff and agreed to pay KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff by December 31, 2015. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 20 million and damages for delay.
2. Determination
A. If there is a dispute over the existence of the original and the authenticity of the establishment, and there is an objection against the other party against the substitution of the original, a copy may not replace the original. On the other hand, if a copy is submitted as the original, it shall not be deemed that the copy constitutes an independent documentary evidence, or otherwise, it shall not be deemed that the original has been submitted. In this case, there is no evidence that there exists the same original as the copy by evidence, and that there is no more evidence of the same content than that of the original, unless it is recognized that the original has been duly established.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da66133 delivered on August 23, 2002, etc.). B.
On the other hand, No. 1, which corresponds to the plaintiff's assertion, denies the existence of the original by asserting that the defendant was not the original but the original document and that the original was not affixed to such document. Thus, the plaintiff does not present a reasonable ground for not submitting the original, even if the plaintiff recognizes that the same original as the above copy exists and that the original was duly established, and that the plaintiff does not have the original document, and it is difficult to view that the remaining evidence submitted by the plaintiff exists the same original as the above payment note and that the original was duly established.
Therefore, the evidence No. 1 cannot be used as evidence because the existence and authenticity of the original cannot be recognized, and the Defendant’s statement of the evidence No. 5 alone on his behalf of May 8, 2015.