Whether the party's examination protocol is subject to litigation to confirm the authenticity of the deed

A document which is the object of a lawsuit for confirmation of the authenticity of a deed shall be limited to a document which certifies legal relations, as prescribed by Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is evident that a protocol which examines the party and records the statement does not fall under the above document.

Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da2154 delivered on March 21, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 1189Da1589 delivered on March 21, 196, Supreme Court Decision 15Da233 delivered on June 15, 199, Supreme Court Decision 228Da927 delivered on March

Plaintiff

Defendant

Jeonju District Court of the first instance (73Gahap84) Military Accounting Assistance (73Gahap84)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

It is confirmed that the defendant's personal inquiry protocol at the time of the fourth trial on the case of the claim for the transfer of real estate ownership and divorce (Counterclaim) at the Gwangju High Court 72Reu12 and 13 is not genuine.

According to the plaintiff's complaint of this case, although the defendant was not examined by the party at the fourth date of pleading of the case Nos. 72Reu12 and 13 mobilized by the Gwangju High Court on July 12, 1972, the plaintiff prepared and bound the records as he was examined by the party even though the defendant was not examined by the party. This is not true. Thus, the plaintiff's petition is sought to confirm the non-petition, but the document which is the object of the lawsuit for confirmation of the authenticity of the deed is limited to the document proving legal relations as stipulated in Article 228 (a) of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is clear that the document which is the object of the lawsuit for confirmation of the authenticity

Therefore, this lawsuit constitutes an unlawful lawsuit and thus, it shall be dismissed. The judgment of the court that shares the same conclusion is just and without merit, and the appeal against it is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost it. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Young-young (Presiding Judge)