The case holding that the judgment of the court below which did not recognize the authenticity of documentary evidence has violated the rules of evidence

The case holding that the judgment of the court below which did not recognize the authenticity of documentary evidence has violated the rules of evidence.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorney Lee Jae-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 31 others, a litigation taking over by the deceased Nonparty 1

Gwangju High Court Decision 91Na5456 delivered on April 30, 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, the above evidence Nos. 5-7 and 5-7 and part of the defendant Nos. 6 at the court of first instance: First, the above defendant Nos. 6, who was the children of the above non-party Nos. 5, did not have any right to transfer shares as alleged in the plaintiffs before the birth of the above non-party No. 2. The above non-party Nos. 4 was mixed with various tax invoices, etc. on February 198, 198, and the plaintiff Nos. 4, who was the non-party Nos. 7 and 5-7, were purchased from the non-party No. 4, and the above non-party Nos. 9 and the non-party Nos. 6, who were the non-party Nos. 7 and the non-party Nos. 9, who were the non-party Nos. 7 and the non-party Nos. 9, who were the non-party Nos. 1 and the non-party Nos. 1 and 7, the non-party No. 9 were admitted. 9.

However, in light of the records on the above first point, since the plaintiff 4's name was omitted at the place where the plaintiff 4's name was written, the plaintiff 4 could not attend the meeting at the time of preparation of the above Gap evidence No. 4, and it could not be known that there was such document. Secondly, in the case where the authenticity of the above evidence No. 4 is recognized, the defendant 20 must transfer a certain portion from his own share to the above additional 4's successor. Thus, his statement cannot be deemed to be necessarily reliable, and in the case of the above third point, even if the above non-party 5 succeeded to the above non-party 5 in succession as stated in the judgment of the court below at the time of preparation of the evidence No. 4, even if the non-party 9, who is his wife, succeeded to the above non-party 5 in succession, the defendant 5 et al. can not be deemed to have acted as the representative of the defendant 5, the plaintiff 5 et al.'s successor to the above non-party 6.

In addition, as acknowledged by the court below, the above evidence Nos. 4 was found to have been arranged by the above defendant 6, who is an son of the above non-party 2's son, and therefore, it is clear that the documents forged by the plaintiffs or the above 4, and according to the statements No. 5-7 and the defendant 6's personal examination result of the first instance court, the pen-type No. 4 is without the above non-party 2's pen-type. Thus, if the evidence No. 4 is not a document duly formed, it shall be deemed that the above non-party 2 was a document prepared without the name of another son affixed to the above documents. In light of the contents of the evidence No. 4, the profits accrued to the above non-party 2 by the above non-party 4 cannot be viewed as a document created by forging the above document's signature affixed to a large number of persons (i.e., the statement of the above document's 2/12/12 and the shares purchased by the deceased non-party 1/4).

In addition, according to the statement No. 5-7, the defendant 6, who was the defendant of the first instance court, was adopted as a witness in the Jeonju District Court 88Da355, 690, 850, 942, which is a separate lawsuit against the land of this case, for which the defendant 6, who was the defendant of the first instance court, sustained possession and management of the previous forest of this case by dividing 11 persons or their descendants as stated in Gap evidence No. 4, and the possession and management of the previous forest of this case, and it can be recognized that the contents of the statement correspond to Gap evidence No. 4. The above co-owner as well as the above co-owner, four or their descendants, as the above defendant 6's statement, have actually been occupied and managed by dividing the previous forest of this case into a separate lawsuit against the land of this case. This fact can be a strong evidence that the documents under Gap evidence No. 4 are not forged.

Therefore, the court below should further examine whether not only seven co-owners of the previous forest of this case but also four additional owners or descendants have actually occupied and managed the previous forest of this case by dividing it, and then, although it should have decided whether to recognize the authenticity of the evidence No. 4 by fully taking into account the discovery process of evidence No. 4, the fact that the entry of evidence No. 4 was written by Nonparty 2, and the contents of evidence No. 4, the court below determined that the authenticity of evidence No. 4 cannot be recognized only for the reasons stated in the judgment, and therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)