[1] Where a party or his/her agent files a judgment on an administrative fine pursuant to Article 363 of the Civil Procedure Act on the ground that the party or his/her agent breached the truth intentionally or by gross negligence, whether the court shall hear the party’s statement before rendering the judgment on the administrative fine (affirmative)

[2] The effect of submission of evidence by a copy where disputes arise as to the existence of the original and the authenticity of the establishment of the original

[1] A judgment on a fine for negligence under the Civil Procedure Act applies Articles 248 and 250 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act except for the provisions on an inspection (Article 224(2) of the Civil Procedure Act). In a judgment on a fine for negligence under Article 363 of the Civil Procedure Act on the grounds that the party concerned or his/her representative disputed the authenticity of documents contrary to the truth intentionally or by gross negligence, the court shall hear the party’s statement before rendering the judgment on the fine for negligence, and if it is deemed reasonable, the court may hear the party’s statement and make the judgment on the fine for negligence without hearing the party’s statement. However, such a summary judgment shall lose its effect by the party’s objection, and the court shall hear

[2] The submission of a document shall be made in the original. Since the submission of a document is not the original, but the submission of a document is, in principle, unlawful since it is not the original, because there is no guarantee of accuracy. Thus, if there is a dispute over the existence of the original and the authenticity of the establishment of the original, and there is an objection against the other party regarding the substitution of the original, a copy may not be substituted by the original. On the other hand, if a copy is submitted as the original, the copy shall not be an independent documentary evidence, or otherwise, the original shall not be deemed to have been submitted. In this case, there is no evidence beyond that there is a copy of the same content as the copy by evidence, and unless it is recognized that the original was duly established.

[1] Articles 224(2) and 363 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 248 and 250 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act / [2] Article 355 of the Civil Procedure Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 2000Da66133 decided Aug. 23, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2182)

Re-appellant

Limited Liability Company Specialized in Full-Time Securitization

Daegu District Court Order 2008Na17760 dated November 5, 2009

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

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. As to the procedure of judgment on fine for negligence

In a judgment on a fine for negligence under the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 248 and 250 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act shall apply with the exception of the provisions on an inspection (Article 224(2) of the Civil Procedure Act). In a judgment on a fine for negligence under Article 363 of the Civil Procedure Act on the ground that the party concerned or his/her representative disputed the authenticity of documents contrary to the truth intentionally or by gross negligence, the court shall hear the statement of the party concerned before rendering the judgment on the fine for negligence, and if it is deemed reasonable, the court may hear the statement of the party concerned before rendering the judgment on the fine for negligence, but such summary judgment shall lose its effect by filing an objection by the party concerned, and the court shall

According to the records, the court below determined that the re-appellant applied Article 363 of the Civil Procedure Act to the case where the re-appellant was dissatisfied with the truth intentionally or by gross negligence, and applied Article 363 of the Civil Procedure Act to the case where the re-appellant was sentenced to an administrative fine of 50,000 won. However, the court below did not hear the Re-Appellant's statement before rendering the above judgment, and although the re-appellant submitted an immediate appeal to the effect that the Re-Appellant was dissatisfied with the administrative fine judgment within one week from the date when the above judgment was notified, the court below can find out the facts such as hearing

In light of the relevant provisions as seen earlier, the order of the court below that rendered a judgment of fine for negligence without hearing the statement of the re-appellant is unlawful, and even if the order of the court below is a summary judgment, it is deemed that the order of the court below was invalidated by the re-appellant's objection. Thus, the order of the court below's judgment

2. As to the contents of judgment on fine for negligence

Since the submission of a document shall be made as the original, not the original, but the submission of a document by simple copy is inappropriate in principle as there is no guarantee of accuracy. Thus, the submission of a document is in dispute as to the existence of the original and the authenticity of the establishment of the original, and if there is an objection against the other party to the substitution of the original, a copy may not be substituted by the original. On the other hand, if the copy is submitted as the original, the copy shall not be an independent documentary evidence, or otherwise, the original shall not be deemed to have been submitted. In this case, there is no evidence that there is no same original as the copy by evidence, and unless it is recognized that the original has been genuine (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da66133, Aug. 23, 2002, etc.).

The court below imposed a fine for negligence on the ground that the Re-Appellant was dissatisfied with the truth by intention or gross negligence in the Daegu District Court No. 2008Na17760, and that the Re-Appellant was dissatisfied with the petition of the No. 6 (O. 6).

However, in light of the above legal principles and the records, the plaintiff in the above case submitted the "Dulball Settlement Application" as Gap No. 6. Since the first instance trial, the plaintiff did not submit the original without any assertion or proof as to the specific reasons for the non-production of the original document despite the continuous request of the re-appellant (the defendant in the above case). The re-appellant requested the submission of the original document, and dispute over the existence of the original document and the authenticity of the establishment of the original document, it seems difficult to recognize the re-appellant as having a ground for imposing an administrative fine under Article 363(1) of the Civil Procedure

Nevertheless, the order of the court below that imposed a fine for negligence without further deliberation on the existence of the ground for the fine for negligence is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the procedure of examining documentary evidence or Article 363 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)