If a copy of a document is substituted by or submitted as an original, the validity of the document as evidence.

According to Article 326 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, a document may be submitted in lieu of the original, original, or certified certified copy, or a copy itself as an original in lieu of the original. In the event that a copy is submitted as an original, the copy shall be 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 there is no other evidence that there is a copy of such content, unless it is recognized that the original has been duly established.

Article 326(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 91Da45608 delivered on April 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 1708) Supreme Court Decision 91Da35540, 35557 delivered on December 22, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 543) Supreme Court Decision 96Da23092 delivered on September 20, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3134)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Regular Ho-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Haju-si

Daejeon High Court Decision 96Na4631 delivered on June 10, 1997

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below made a registration of transfer of ownership of 3/6 shares in the real estate of this case. Since before February 16, 1990, the market price of the defendant opened a road on the land which is the real estate of this case and confirmed the fact that the defendant occupied and used it lawfully. On the other hand, since the defendant's possession of the real estate of this case is based on legitimate title, the defendant's claim for return of unjust enrichment of this case is without merit. According to macro evidence, as the real estate of this case is incorporated into a road site, the defendant Si made an appraisal of the real estate of this case from May 25, 1976 to make compensation and made an internal compensation amount of 2,891,000 won, which is assessed as the appraised value of this case, and notified the plaintiffs of the fact that the defendant did not occupy the real estate of this case and made a registration of transfer of ownership within the time limit of 2,891,000 won, and then the defendant did not complete the sale of ownership.

Article 326(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a document may be submitted as an original in lieu of, or a certified copy, the original in lieu of, the original. If a copy is submitted as an original, the copy shall not be deemed as an independent documentary evidence. In this case, the original shall not be deemed to have been submitted by evidence. In addition, unless there is the same original as the copy, and the original is deemed to have been duly established, there is no evidence of the existence of the same content. (See Supreme Court Decisions 91Da45608 delivered on April 28, 1992, 91Da3540, 3557 delivered on December 22, 1992, 96Da23092 delivered on September 20, 196, the court below acknowledged the existence of a copy of the original statement as a witness and the above evidence No. 1 to 2701 delivered on September 13, 197.

In addition, the court below recognized the above facts in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 2-1 through 3, and 5 through 7, and recognized the above facts by integrating the remaining evidences, and the above fact-finding by the court below is just, and there is no error of law in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no ground for appeal.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)