A. Whether the comparison of the official seal under Article 330 of the Civil Procedure Act can be determined by land (affirmative)

(b) The case holding that the above delegation contract cannot be deemed to have become null and void naturally on the ground that the delivery of a certificate of seal imprint was made invalid on the grounds that the other party to the transaction has indicated and verified that he entrusted the sale of real estate to

A. The comparison of the official seal under Article 330 of the Civil Procedure Act is deemed to be identical with the official seal of the court of original judgment, which is a fact-finding court, with the document maker’s official seal, barring special circumstances. In this case, the court does not necessarily need to determine the identity of the document’s official seal by means of appraisal, and it can be determined by comparison with the document’s official seal.

B. The case holding that the delegation contract cannot be deemed naturally null and void on the ground that the term of the delegation contract cannot be interpreted as limited to the term of validity of the certificate of the seal impression, since the delivery of a certificate of the seal impression to the other party to the transaction of the real estate indicates that he/she has entrusted the sale of the real estate to the holder.

A. Article 330 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 70Da2623 delivered on January 26, 1971 (No. 19(1) and 77Da762 delivered on September 13, 197

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

Defendant 1 and 2 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Gwangju District Court Decision 90Na727 delivered on March 21, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 6

The registration of ownership transfer under Defendant 1 with respect to the real estate in this case was made by means of a false statement of the deceased Nonparty 1’s personal seal impression, etc. as stated in the judgment of the court below, and was made on the same day following the registration of ownership transfer under the deceased Nonparty 1’s name. However, it cannot be readily concluded that the above registration under the name of the defendant in this case conforms to the substantive legal relationship, regardless of whether it conforms to the substantive legal relationship. Thus, the argument is groundless.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below reasoned that Eul's certificate Nos. 2 (Certificate of Seal Imprint) is a public document, and it is presumed that Eul's certificate Nos. 3 (No. 3) is established, and due to the result of verification on the original court's free trial in 1978 and the entry of Eul's certificate No. 2, it is recognized that the non-party No. 1's certificate under the name is made with the seals of the non-party No. 1, and therefore, it is presumed that the entire document's authenticity is established. The court below determined that the non-party No. 1 delegated the right to dispose of the real estate of this case to the non-party No. 2, based on the entry of the above certificate No. 3, and it is obvious in itself that the court below's explanation that the evidence No. 3 is based on Article 330 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is the fact-finding court's evidence No. 3, and that the above evidence No. 2, unless there are special circumstances, can be found that the non-party No. 17197.

3. As to the fifth ground for appeal

The court below's rejection of Gap evidence No. 5-1 in lieu of Eul evidence No. 2 and Eul evidence No. 3, is justified, and there is no illegality in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of the lawsuit, and the argument is groundless.

4. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to each witness examination protocol against the non-party 3 and non-party 4 in the first instance trial, the real estate sales contract of this case was concluded as a broker of the non-party 3, and the non-party 3 and the non-party 4 participated at the time, and upon the presentation of the evidence No. 4 (sales contract), it can be known that "this is the sales contract," so the court below recognized the establishment of the evidence No. 4 by the above testimony, and there is no illegality in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the establishment of evidence No. 4, such as the theory of lawsuit. The argument also is groundless.

5. As to the third ground for appeal

In recognizing the authenticity of No. 5 (Receipt) by Nonparty 4’s testimony at the court of first instance, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of the authenticity of No. 5 (Receipt) with the testimony of Nonparty 4, and further, it cannot be readily concluded that the purchaser of real estate agrees to pay the remainder of the sale at the same time as the registration procedure of ownership transfer of the target real estate while the purchaser of real estate agrees to pay the remainder of the sale

6. As to the fourth ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as to the plaintiff's assertion that "No. 2 (Certificate of Seal Imprint) was issued on October 16, 197 and since the sales contract of this case was made on March 5, 1980 after the expiration of the term of validity of the certificate of seal impression, the delegation cannot be deemed to continue until the time of the above sales contract, so the above delegation contract was already invalidated or terminated before the contract of this case," the above delegation contract of this case is stipulated in Article 9 (4) of the Certification of Seal Imprint (Presidential Decree No. 4672) which was enforced at the time of issuance of No. 2 (Presidential Decree No. 4672) of the certificate of seal imprint which was enforced at the time of issuance of No. 2 (Presidential Decree No. 4672), "the validity of the certificate shall be lost after the lapse of three months from the date of issuance of the certificate of seal imprint certificate". However, the delivery of No. 2 to the above non-party 2 cannot be deemed to be unlawful prior to the expiration of the above term of the contract of this case.

7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)