[1] In a case where a written appraisal opinion prepared by a person with professional knowledge and experience outside a lawsuit is submitted with documentary evidence, whether the court may use it as a material for fact-finding (affirmative)

[2] Whether the facts are recognized under any one of the different appraisal results (affirmative)

[3] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which rejected any other appraisal result contrary to the above, by taking the appraisal result without credibility

[1] Even if the appraisal opinion is not based on the method of the examination of an appraiser or the entrustment of appraisal under the Civil Procedure Act, and even if it is a document in which the appraisal opinion is prepared by a person with professional knowledge and experience outside of a lawsuit, if it is deemed reasonable by the court when the document is submitted in documentary evidence, it may be

[2] If there are several different appraisal results with respect to the same matter, it is legitimate unless it violates the rules of experience or logic.

[3] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which rejected any other appraisal result contrary to the above, by taking the appraisal result without credibility

[1] Articles 187, 313, and 314 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da44674 delivered on April 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 1543) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 65Da1660 delivered on October 26, 1965 (No. 13-2, 211) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da16075 delivered on August 13, 1991 (Gong1991, 2353), Supreme Court Decision 91Da39368 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong192, 3246), Supreme Court Decision 94Da34562 delivered on August 25, 195 (Gong195Ha, 3262), Supreme Court Decision 97Da39794 delivered on April 197, 1995 (Gong197Da39794 delivered on April 197, 1995).

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Tae-sub, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Gyeong-sik et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 96Na10055 delivered on November 26, 1997

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant, around December 8, 1992, issued one promissory note with both the face value column, the issue date column, the issue date column, the payment place column, the payment place column, and the payee column in blank and delivered it to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff, on December 28, 1992, the issue date column was 75,00,000 won, and the issue date column was 75,000,000 won, and the payment place column was 28, 1992, respectively, and the Seoul and the payment place column was presented to the plaintiff at the payment place. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's testimony was 9,00,000 won without presenting the original copy. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's testimony was 6,000,000 won, and the defendant's assertion that the defendant's testimony was 9, as the original copy.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

The most important ground for the court below's determination that the bill of this case was forged is the result of non-party 1's above appraisal. The plaintiff submitted evidence that the bill was properly issued by the defendant. Even if the appraisal opinion is not a method of requesting an appraiser examination or appraisal under the Civil Procedure Act, but a document which contains appraisal opinion prepared by a person with professional knowledge and experience outside a lawsuit, it is deemed reasonable by the court when the document was submitted as a documentary evidence, which can be used as a material for fact-finding (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da4674, Apr. 10, 1992; 65Da1660, Oct. 26, 1965). Ultimately, in this case, different 2 appraisal results were submitted as to whether the bill of this case was forged, and if there were different appraisal results in the same matter, it should be established as a legitimate judgment of the court below, 97Da19649, Apr. 19, 197.

However, according to the records of this case, with respect to the portion of the bill of this case as the appraisal method submitted by Nonparty 1 to the court, Nonparty 1, using the image monitoring device and optical semester connected to the U.S., was examined as the whole using the image monitoring device connected to the U.S. border, angle, distance, size, the location of figures and figures, the contact status of figures and figures, the personal seal impression and seal, and the characteristics difficult to gather, etc. were examined as to whether there was forgery by the personal seal color and photographing, etc. The court below rejected Nonparty 1’s credibility as a whole by using the image monitoring device connected to the U.S. border with the U.S. border, other optical instruments, etc., and by using the same as the whole, it is difficult to see that Nonparty 1, as the result of Nonparty 1’s appraisal and assessment, it is hard to see that Nonparty 1’s appraisal and assessment were forged or non-party 1’s credibility as the result of Nonparty 1’s appraisal and assessment.

Therefore, the court below did not conclude that the bill of this case was forged by taking the above appraisal result as it is, but rather, it should have judged whether the bill of this case was forged by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations in violation of the rules of evidence in accordance with the rules of experience and logic, and therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the bill of this case was forged by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations in violation of the rules of evidence in accordance with the rules of experience and logic, and therefore, there is a reason to hold the plaintiff's appeal pointing this out.

3. 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 Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)