If a copy is submitted on behalf of the original or as the original, the validity of the submission of evidence

[1] Article 355 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 95Da48667 Decided March 8, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1708), Supreme Court Decision 99Da3824 Decided November 12, 1999 (Gong1999Ha, 2501), Supreme Court Decision 2000Da66133 Decided August 23, 2002 (Gong2000Da66140 Decided August 23, 2002) (Gong2000Da61400 Decided August 23, 2002)

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na14888 decided May 2, 2012

Korean Bank (Law Firm Geosung, Attorneys Kang Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Na32655 delivered on November 15, 2002

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

1. With respect to the guarantee letter of this case, the plaintiff sent a facsimile to the defendant trade center's employees who signed the above guarantee letter, and then sent it again to the plaintiff's agent. The defendant trade center's employees of the defendant 2's office sent a facsimile to the plaintiff's agent. The plaintiff's employees of the defendant 2's office sent a facsimile to the plaintiff's agent. The copy of the facsimile No. 2 of this case's No. 2 (the "Guarantee No. 2"; hereinafter) is the original copy and the signature rubber's seal to the defendant's employees was not sufficient. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant trade center's employees did not use the facsimile machine for the convenience of customers, and it did not use the original document No. 2 in light of the facts that the defendant 2's employees did not use the original document No. 2 with Gap's official seal or other similar evidence as Gap's official seal to the defendant 2's original document, and it did not use the original document No. 2's official seal and other evidence as Gap's commercial evidence No. 2.

2. The submission or delivery of a document must be made by the original, original, or certified copy. Thus, the submission of evidence by only a simple copy, other than the original, original, or certified copy, is unlawful in principle as there is no accuracy guarantee. In particular, in a case where there is dispute over the existence of the original and the authenticity of the establishment, and there is an objection against the other party regarding the substitution of the original, the copy cannot be substituted by the original. On the other hand, in a case where a copy is submitted as an original, the copy shall not be deemed to be an independent documentary evidence, but in this case, the original shall not be deemed to have been submitted by the evidence, and in this case, there is no evidence that there is no same original as the copy by evidence, and there is no more evidence that there is such a copy (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da6133, Aug. 23, 2002, etc.).

The defendant denies the establishment of the above evidence No. 2, and there is no evidence to prove the existence of the original and its authenticity as above, and there is no evidence to prove that there is a copy of the above evidence No. 2, and there is no other evidence to prove the existence of the defendant's guarantee act even after examining the record, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's claim is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of the guarantee contract as set forth in the ground of appeal No. 1, or in the omission of judgment.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Byun Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)