1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance between the plaintiff and the defendant shall be revoked, and the revocation part shall be revoked.

1. On July 30, 201, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (hereinafter “the deceased”) drafted a letter of payment stating that “The Plaintiff paid KRW 52,250,000 to F on behalf of the Deceased, so the Deceased would pay KRW 52,250,000 to the Plaintiff.”

The Deceased died on December 16, 2011, and the Defendant succeeded to the Deceased with the co-defendant C of the first instance trial.

따라서 피고는 원고에게 위 지불각서에 따른 망인의 각서금 채무 중 피고의 상속지분에 해당하는 26,125,000원(= 52,250,000원 × ½) 및 이에 대한 지연손해금을 지급할 의무가 있다.

2. Determination:

A. (i) If the authenticity of a letter of payment in the deceased’s name is reproduced by his/her seal, barring any special circumstance, it shall be presumed that the authenticity of the seal is established, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the originator, barring any special circumstance. Once the authenticity of the seal is presumed, Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act (Presumption of the authenticity of private document) shall be presumed to be true if the signature, seal, or seal of the principal or his/her agent is affixed.

The authenticity of the entire document is presumed by the court, but such presumption is a de facto presumption, so if a person who disputes the authenticity of the seal imprint proves that the authenticity of the seal imprint is based on the intention of the person who prepared the document, that is, the act of affixing the seal is based on the intention of the person who prepared the document, the presumption of the authenticity of the document is broken.

(대법원 1995. 3. 10. 선고 93다30129, 30136 판결, 대법원 2003. 2. 11. 선고 2002다59344 판결 등 참조). ⑵ 판 단 ㈎ 이 사건에 관하여 살피건대, 갑 제1호증(지불각서)의 기재 및 형상, 제1심 법원의 H동장에 대한 사실조회회신 결과에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, "제(망인)가 F로부터 2005. 6. 30. 금 30,000,000원을 월 이자...