[1] Whether the authenticity of the entire private document by recognizing the authenticity of the seal imprint portion, etc. is presumed (affirmative)

[2] Whether the authenticity of the entire private document as a completed document can be presumed by the acknowledgement of the authenticity of the stamp image portion, etc. (affirmative)

[3] The burden of proof as to the reversal of the presumption of the authenticity as a completion document and the reversal of such presumption in a case where such presumption is reversed

[1] A private document is presumed to be authentic when it is signed, sealed, or stamped by the principal or his/her agent (Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act). In cases where it is acknowledged that the person who prepared the private document voluntarily signed, sealed, or affixed his/her seal on the private document in question, in other cases where it is recognized that the portion of the seal imprint, etc. is established, the authenticity of the entire document shall be presumed to be established unless there are other special circumstances, such as the reversal

[2] If the authenticity of a seal imprint, etc. is recognized, the document may be presumed to have been signed, sealed, and affixed by the person under whose name the document was completed, unless there are other special circumstances.

[3] In a case where the authenticity of a seal imprint, etc. is recognized, the circumstances such as the person who first puts his signature and seal at the time when all or part of the document was completed shall be deemed to belong to the same example. Thus, there is a need for reasonable grounds to support the presumption of the authenticity of the completion document and an indirect reflective evidence, etc. In a case where it is revealed that the presumption of the authenticity of the completion document as the completion document has been reversed and that there is a supplement to the blank document or the unsatisfy part, etc. by a person who is not the person who prepared the document, the person who asserts the authenticity of the document or the person who submitted the document bears the burden of proof with regard to

[1] Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Articles 202, 357, and 358 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da462 delivered on June 13, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2138) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 87Da1397 delivered on April 12, 198 (Gong198, 828) (Gong1988, 1315), Supreme Court Decision 94Da11590 delivered on October 14, 1994 (Gong194, 2974), Supreme Court Decision 97Da38190 delivered on December 12, 197 (Gong198, 280), Supreme Court Decision 90Da3709 delivered on June 9, 200 (Gong198, 2970), Supreme Court Decision 2009Da160790 delivered on June 9, 200 (Gong198, 2970)

1. The term “the term” means “the term” means “the term “the term” means “the term.

Defendant (Attorney Lee In-hee, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 2000Na36773 delivered on January 18, 2001

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Judgment on ground of appeal No. 1

A private document is presumed to be authentic when the signature, seal, or seal of the person or his agent is affixed (Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act). In cases where it is recognized that the person who prepares the private document has signed, sealed, or affixed the private document in question, the authenticity of the entire document shall be presumed to have been established unless there are special circumstances, such as the reversal of presumption by counter-proof. If the authenticity of the seal imprint is recognized, the document shall be presumed to have been signed, sealed, or affixed under the circumstances where the entire document is completed, and it shall be presumed that the person who prepares the document has first signed, sealed, or affixed the seal at that time when the whole or part of the document was completed, and if it is intended to reverse the presumption of the authenticity as a complete document, it shall be deemed that there is a need for proof to support the signature, seal, or affixed the document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da13979, Sept. 27, 198; 200Da197989, Apr. 197, 1999.

In this case, the defendant's above-mentioned statement and its employees (the above-mentioned evidence No. 14-3 and No. 6 are the same as the above-mentioned evidence No. 14), which are disputed that part of the defendant was forged, are private documents prepared by the defendant to report the defendant's name and address to be used in future discount transactions pursuant to the above-mentioned agreement with the plaintiff on Aug. 28, 1996. The defendant himself stated his name and address on the applicant's name and affixed the defendant's seal imprint on his name. Thus, the defendant's signature and seal imprint in the above-mentioned application form cannot be presumed to have been established as the whole as a complete document unless there are other special circumstances. However, the defendant's signature and seal imprint in the bottom of the above application form cannot be deemed to have been destroyed by the defendant's signature and seal imprint affixed to the non-party No. 1 and the above-indicted No. 2's signature and seal imprint affixed to the above non-party No. 3's original name and seal imprint.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below on the establishment of each of the above applications and promissory notes is inadequate in its reasoning, but it is legitimate in its conclusion that recognized the authenticity of the above documents. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the establishment of the authenticity of private documents which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and by violating the rules of evidence.

2. Judgment on ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the following facts: Gap evidence Nos. 14-3, Gap evidence Nos. 16, 17-1, and 2 which can be recognized as the authenticity; and the defendant entered into a bill limit transaction agreement with the plaintiff on August 28, 1996 with the amount of 1 billion won at the request of the non-party No. 1, and submitted an application for the use of the name and seal impression in the name of the defendant; the defendant agreed that the non-party No. 1 received the discount from the plaintiff pursuant to the above bill limit transaction agreement using the defendant's name; the defendant did not err in the misapprehension of the facts as alleged in the judgment of the court below on September 5, 1996 by finding that the amount of discount discount under the above agreement remains 26,828,49, and 160 billion won again between the plaintiff and the defendant on September 5, 199, and there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principle as 300,000,05,000.

3. Determination on grounds of appeal Nos. 3 through 5

The court below recognized that the defendant is liable for the repayment of the loan to the defendant is not based on the name holder's liability under the commercial law, but on the agreement under the discount agreement of bill, and it is clear in itself of the judgment of the court below. Therefore, on the premise that the court below recognized that the defendant is also liable for the name holder's liability under the commercial law, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the liability for the name holder's liability under the commercial law, incomplete hearing, violation of the rules of evidence,

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)