If a copy is submitted in lieu of the original or a copy itself as the original, the effect of the evidence

According to Article 326 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, a document may be submitted on behalf of the original, original, or certified copy, or a copy itself as an original in lieu of the original. Thus, if the other party acknowledges the existence or establishment of the original and objects thereto, a copy may be submitted on behalf of the original in lieu of the original. In such a case, the same effect as the original is the case where the original is submitted. On the other hand, if a copy is submitted as an original, the copy shall be an independent documentary evidence. On the other hand, it shall not be deemed that the original has been submitted as an independent documentary evidence, but in this case, it shall be recognized that there exists the same original as the copy by evidence, and if there is another original, it shall be recognized that the original has been duly established, and there is no evidence that there is no more than such a copy.

Article 326(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 4286Hun-Ba107 Decided September 4, 1954 (No. 1 No. 1 No. 5088 Decided November 28, 1989) (Gong190,139)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na14484 delivered on November 13, 1991

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The additional appellate brief is not timely filed, so it shall be considered to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that on September 19, 1983, the plaintiff and the defendant concluded a partnership agreement with the purport that the defendant should sell the building site and newly constructed the building and sell the building at the expense of the plaintiff, and deduct various expenses from the plaintiff's expenses. In the course of the plaintiff's shortage of funds, the plaintiff's construction expenses, etc. should be paid from the plaintiff's proceeds after completing investment in the building site and newly constructed building of this case. The plaintiff's construction expenses should be paid from the plaintiff's proceeds. The plaintiff's new building after completion of the construction, confirmed that the registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the name of the defendant, and further, it is hard to recognize that the plaintiff's signature was cancelled on January 30, 1984 due to the lack of the plaintiff's ability to bear funds, and it is hard to recognize that the plaintiff's signature was proved as 10,000 evidence No. 91, the plaintiff's signature and evidence No. 15, which is in accordance with the purport of the plaintiff's evidence No. 1.

2. According to Article 326(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, a document may be submitted as an original, original, or certified copy, in principle, in lieu of the original or certified copy, or a copy itself as an original.

If the other party acknowledges the existence or establishment of, and has no objection to, the original as a copy, a copy may be submitted in lieu of the original, and in such a case, the same effect as the original is the same as the case in which the original is submitted. On the other hand, where the copy is submitted as the original, the copy shall be an independent documentary evidence, but in this case, it shall not be deemed that the original has been submitted by evidence, and in this case, it shall be recognized that there exists the same original as the copy, and that the original has been duly constituted, and if so, there is no evidence that there exists a copy of such content.

3. Although it is unclear whether the document No. 1 written only in the list of documentary evidence of this case submitted a copy of whether the document No. 1 was submitted in lieu of the original document as the original document, the defendant appears to have submitted a copy of the written agreement as the original document for the reason that the original document of this case was lost. In light of the records, the evidence presented by the court below revealed that the document No. 1 was the most important evidence to recognize the fact that the document No. 1 was rescinded in the same business contract as the court below.

However, the plaintiff asserts that the authenticity of the above evidence No. 1 was denied and it was forged at the argument of this case. According to the statement No. 9-5 (Statement of the plaintiff prepared by the judicial police officer) of the above agreement, the plaintiff filed a complaint on the ground that the defendant submitted it as evidence by forging the above agreement, and that the evidence No. 1 was removed from the plaintiff's name and operated by the police as a reproduction of the defendant's name, so the authenticity cannot be acknowledged only with the whole purport of the pleading. The plaintiff's signature which the plaintiff copied No. 9-5 of the above evidence No. 9-5 cannot be concluded to have been duly established solely on the ground that there is a statement that the plaintiff's signature which the plaintiff copied No. 1 was written by the plaintiff No. 1, and in light of the function and method of use of the current copyer No. 1, the authenticity of the original is not recognized by the method of duplication or the form thereof.

4. If so, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the admissibility of documentary evidence, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or violating the rules of evidence, and it is justified to the extent of this issue.

Therefore, 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 Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)