[1] The meaning of “written document proving the legal relationship” subject to a lawsuit confirming whether the deed is authentic

[2] The case holding that a receipt prepared to prove the receipt of a certain amount as a lease agreement cannot be the object of a lawsuit to confirm whether the deed is authentic, since it is not a document directly proving the establishment or existence of a legal relationship, such as lease, unless there are special circumstances

[3] The reason why Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act permits a lawsuit to confirm the authenticity of the deed, and the requirements for the lawsuit

[4] In a case where a lawsuit has already been filed over a legal relationship to be proved by a certain document, whether there is a benefit in confirming the authenticity of the document separately (negative)

[1] Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “The lawsuit for confirmation may also be instituted in order to determine whether or not a document verifying the legal relationship is authentic.” Thus, the document that is the object of a lawsuit to confirm the authenticity of a deed is limited to a document directly proving the legal relationship, and “a document proving the legal relationship” means a document that can directly prove the existence of a specific legal relationship from the content of the document.

[2] The case holding that a receipt prepared to prove the receipt of a certain amount as a lease agreement cannot be the object of a lawsuit to confirm whether the deed is authentic, since it is not a document directly proving the establishment or existence of legal relations, such as lease, unless there are special circumstances.

[3] Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act permits a lawsuit to confirm the authenticity of a deed under Article 250 of the said Act, as a result, the parties may no longer dispute as to the authenticity of the document if it becomes final and conclusive, and thus, the dispute itself concerning legal relations or at least contributed to the resolution of the dispute itself. Therefore, in order for a lawsuit to verify the authenticity of a deed to be lawful, there is a benefit to seek the confirmation of the authenticity of the document.

[4] In a case where a lawsuit has already been filed over a legal relationship to be proved by a certain document, it would be possible to resolve the dispute in the lawsuit, and thus, the filing of a lawsuit to confirm the authenticity of the document does not have the benefit of confirmation, barring special circumstances.

[1] Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act / [4] Article 250 of

[1] [3] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da53714 decided Dec. 14, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 289) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 66Da2154 decided Mar. 21, 1967 (No. 15-1, 233) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 91Da15317 decided Dec. 10, 191 (Gong192, 479)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Lee Ji-hoon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Lee Yong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Na6162, 6179 decided April 28, 2005

The part of the judgment below against Defendant 1 and the part of the claim for confirmation of authenticity of the receipt against Defendant 2 are reversed, and the same part of the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and this part of the lawsuit is dismissed. The remaining appeals by Defendant 2 are dismissed. The total costs of the lawsuit between the Plaintiff and the Defendants are borne by

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. As to the assertion that the receipt is not the subject of a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the authenticity of the certificate

Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “A lawsuit for confirmation may also be instituted in order to determine whether or not a document verifying legal relations is authentic.” Thus, a document which is the object of a lawsuit to confirm whether a document is authentic is directly written to certify legal relations, and “a document certifying legal relations” means a document which directly proves the existence or absence of a specific legal relationship from the content of the document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 66Da2154, Mar. 21, 1967; 2001Da53714, Dec. 14, 2001).

According to the records, with respect to the lease contract, receipt, performance note, and payment note against Defendant 1, the Plaintiff sought confirmation against Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. that the form of the lease contract and receipt is not genuine. However, in light of the receipt of the Plaintiff’s written confirmation as above, “the Plaintiff shall receive KRW 200 million from Defendant 1 as the parking lot lease contract for the hospital (the name of the hospital omitted),” or “the Plaintiff shall receive KRW 400 million from Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. as the rental contract for the funeral room in the hospital (the name of the hospital omitted).” Thus, each of the above receipts is merely a written document prepared to prove that it was paid a certain amount of money as the lease contract deposit, and it is not directly proven that the establishment or existence of the legal relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants exists, and thus, it cannot be subject to a lawsuit to confirm whether it is authentic.

Thus, even though the lawsuit seeking confirmation as to whether each of the above receipts is authentic, the court below did not examine it and judged on the merits. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to eligibility in a lawsuit seeking confirmation as to whether the above receipts are authentic. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

B. As to the assertion that there is no benefit in confirmation since the lawsuit to confirm the authenticity of the instant deed is not an effective and appropriate means

Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act permits a lawsuit to confirm the authenticity of a deed as to whether a document verifying legal relations becomes final and conclusive, and as a result, the parties can no longer contest the authenticity of the document, and the dispute itself concerning legal relations or at least contributed to the resolution of the dispute itself. Thus, in order to confirm the authenticity of a lawsuit to confirm the authenticity of a deed, there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the authenticity of the document (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da53714, Dec. 14, 2001).

According to the records, the defendants asserted that the lease contract, the performance note, and the payment note in the plaintiff's name were genuinely prepared by the plaintiff, and that the non-party, who is the plaintiff's private village, prepared the above documents on behalf of the plaintiff, and thus the expression agency under Article 125 of the Civil Act or Article 126 of the Civil Act is established. However, even if the defendants asserted the establishment of the expression agency as above, the liability for the expression agency is only recognized to meet certain requirements prescribed in the Civil Act, and as long as the defendants made the lease contract, the performance note, and the payment note, the contract, the performance note, and the payment note, the plaintiff can only escape from the legal status by the verification that the plaintiff is not genuine, and as such, it can also be seen that the dispute resolution between the plaintiff and the defendants is helpful, it cannot be viewed that there is no benefit to confirm the authenticity of the lease contract, the performance note, and the payment note.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interest in confirmation in a lawsuit seeking confirmation as to whether the deed is authentic.

C. As to the assertion that there is no benefit in confirmation since a separate lawsuit has already been filed on the legal relationship to be proved in writing.

In a case where a lawsuit has already been filed over a legal relationship to be proved by a certain document, the dispute can be resolved, and thus, the filing of a lawsuit to confirm the authenticity of the document separately cannot be deemed as the benefit of confirmation, barring special circumstances.

According to the records, on February 28, 2001, before the plaintiff files a lawsuit to confirm the authenticity of the deed of this case, defendant 1 filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff on February 28, 2001, claiming that there was an agreement on the conclusion of the lease contract, the payment of the rental contract, and the payment of the down payment for the down payment contract, etc., by using the lease contract, receipt, the payment of the lease contract, and the down payment contract, etc. as evidence. Therefore, it seems that there is no benefit for the plaintiff to seek confirmation on the authenticity of the document submitted as evidence in the lawsuit

Thus, the court below determined on the premise that the lawsuit seeking confirmation of the authenticity of the above lease contract, the letter of performance, and the letter of payment is unlawful, and furthermore, on the premise that there is a benefit of confirmation, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the benefit of confirmation, and without examining the remaining points, should reverse the whole judgment on Defendant 1.

On the other hand, Defendant 2 corporation also filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the return of the lease deposit, etc., but the lawsuit seeking the return of the lease deposit, etc. was filed to confirm the authenticity of the Plaintiff’s deed of this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case is not unlawful. The grounds for appeal on this part of Defendant 2 corporation cannot be accepted

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

After compiling the selected evidence, the court below recognized facts as stated in its decision, and judged that the non-party, without permission, provided a lease contract under the name of the plaintiff to the defendant 2 corporation without permission, is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the assertion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the judgment below, the part on the claim for confirmation of authenticity of the receipt against Defendant 2 corporation and the part on Defendant 1 shall be reversed. Since this court is sufficient to render a judgment, it shall be decided to self-market pursuant to Article 437 of the Civil Procedure Act.

For the same reasons as above, the part of the judgment of the court below is dismissed on the ground that this part of the lawsuit is all unlawful, and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this part of the lawsuit is dismissed, and the remaining appeals by the defendant 2 are dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendants are borne by each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)