(a) Where the authenticity of a private document is recognized by testimony, matters to be examined concerning the credibility thereof;

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below in violation of the rules of evidence on the ground that the authenticity of the document was recognized by testimony without credibility of the witness who is a substantial party to the case

A. There is no particular limitation on the method of proving the authenticity of a private document, but the method of proving the document requires credibility. If the authenticity of the document is recognized by the witness’s testimony, the reasonableness of the content of the testimony, the attitude of the witness’s testimony, whether it conforms with other evidence, the interests of the witness in the case, and relations with the parties should be comprehensively examined.

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below in violation of the rules of evidence on the ground that a witness who is a substantial interested party in the case acknowledged the authenticity of the document by testimony without credibility and thereby acknowledged the assertion.

(b) Article 328 of the Civil Procedure Act. Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Co., Ltd.

Defendant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 93Na33646 delivered on April 14, 1994

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the authenticity of Nos. 1 and 2 (written confirmation) by testimony of the witness 1 of the court of first instance. The court below accepted the above documentary evidence and the testimony of the witness, which held on Oct. 18, 1991, the office of Non-party 15,00,000, monthly wage of 80,000 won from the defendant, and decided that the above office of Non-party 1 should be returned to the above office of non-party 1 as security, and the above office of non-party 1 should be returned to the above office of non-party 1, and the above office of non-party 1 should be returned to the above office of non-party 1 for the purpose of returning the above security deposit deposit deposit amount, and the above office of non-party 1 should be returned to the above office of non-party 1 to the above office of non-party 1 and the above office of non-party 1's new claim for the above security deposit cancellation.

2. However, according to the records, the plaintiff asserted that Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of this case was prepared after the defendant and the non-party 1 in order to evade his obligation to the plaintiff. The defendant, at the first hearing of the court of first instance of this case, stated that the office was ordered by the non-party company on October 18, 192, and returned the lease deposit, but on May 12, 1993, stated on the date of the second hearing of the court of first instance, the non-party company's lease contract was terminated at the request of the non-party company on January 5, 1993 and the non-party 1 stated that a new lease contract was concluded between the non-party 1 and the non-party 1. On the other hand, upon examining the testimony of the witness 1 of the court of first instance, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 prepared a new lease contract with the non-party 1 and the witness on October 18, 1992.

3. The method of proving the authenticity of a private document does not have any special limitation on the method of establishing the authenticity of the document, but the method of proving it must be reliable. When the authenticity of the document is acknowledged by the witness's testimony, the reasonableness of the contents of the testimony, the attitude of the witness's testimony, the conformity with other evidences, the interests of the witness in the case, and the relationship with the parties should be comprehensively examined (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da22643 delivered on January 21, 192).

4. Examining the credibility of the witness 1’s testimony according to the record,

A. The witness 1 is the representative director of the non-party company, who was leased and used the above office from the defendant, and the non-party company bears a lot of obligations against the plaintiff, so the possibility of not giving fair testimony cannot be ruled out as a substantial interested person in this case.

B. On December 192, 192, the witness 1 recommended Nonparty 2, who is the Plaintiff’s employee, to make a copy of the lease contract on the above office (Evidence 5) and to enforce compulsory execution on the right to lease deposit against the Defendant of the non-party company. However, up to that time, up to that time, the witness 1 possessed the original copy of the lease contract on the above office.

C. At the time of the succession of the above lease agreement, the non-party company allowed the non-party company to continue to use the loan claim amounting to KRW 15,00,000 against the witness 1 even after the non-party 1 was succeeded to the lessee's status. Furthermore, if the non-party company delays the payment of rent in the future, the delayed rent should be immediately deducted from the lease deposit, but the non-party 1 will be paid the monthly rent of KRW 800,000 without any guarantee, and if the non-party company delays the payment of rent in the future, the non-party 1 would be paid the monthly rent of KRW 80,000 on behalf of the non-party company. If the non-party company delays the payment of the monthly rent, it also constitutes an exception under the experience law.

D. At the time of Nonparty 1’s succession to the lessee’s status, Nonparty 1’s delay in the payment of a considerable amount of monthly rent, but Nonparty 1 or witness 1’s disposal of Nonparty 1’s payment of the full amount of rent to the Defendant without going through any settlement procedure on delayed rent between the Defendant and the Defendant does not easily obtain payment in accordance with the empirical rules.

E. In light of the fact that the non-party 1 did not take all measures to preserve his claim by means of participation in the lawsuit, etc. even though he received a notice of lawsuit from the court of first instance on June 17, 1993 while the lawsuit of this case is pending, the non-party 1's testimony of the witness 1 of the first instance court on the establishment of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 shall be difficult to believe.

5. In addition, the evidence that the court below acknowledged the defendant's facts of defense has been proved by the witness 1 of the court of first instance except the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 where the authenticity of the evidence is not recognized for the above reasons, and the witness's testimony also is doubtful as above, so it shall be deemed that the defendant's facts of defense cannot be proven as evidence to acknowledge the facts of defense.

6. If so, the court below recognized the authenticity of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 by the testimony of a witness who is not reliable, and recognized the defendant's above assertion in full together with the remaining evidence as above is an unlawful act against the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, it is reasonable to point this out.

7. Therefore, without examining the defendant's remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment below and remand the case to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)