The case holding that there was an error of incomplete deliberation as to the authenticity of documents

A statement of appraisal that the stamp image affixed under the name of the nominal owner of a document is considered as a previous stamp image affixed on another paper. If the stamp image is used as the basic issue of the case, and it is not objectively evident whether it is a part of the fact-finding court, the fact-finding court should clarify it by the method of appraisal. However, the fact-finding court should recognize the authenticity of the document only by the testimony of the witness who is in conflict with the interests of the document titleholder and determine the facts based on it.

Articles 183, 329, and 330 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant Kim Jae-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 88Na9116 delivered on February 22, 1989

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the authenticity of the evidence No. 1 (Evidence No. 1) by the testimony of the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 2, and judged that the plaintiff lent the money of this case to the defendant on the basis of the evidence No. 1, No. 4-2 (each appraisal No. 4-2 (each appraisal No. 4-6), No. 2-6 (Protocol of Statement), and No. 18 (Reorder), which alleged that this was forged, are insufficient to reverse the objection (recognition of the establishment of the petition) in light of the evidence cited by the court below, and otherwise, there is no other evidence to recognize that the above loan No. 1 (Evidence No. 1) was forged (Evidence No. 1).

However, according to the reasoning of the court below, although the contents of subparagraph 1 or subparagraph 4-2 (each appraisal document) of subparagraph 1 or subparagraph 4-2 (Evidence A) are those of the above loan 1, it cannot be said that it is insufficient to reverse the court below's fact-finding that the above those of subparagraph 1 were genuinely formed, unless it is believed that the defendant's signature affixed under the name of the above loan 1 is recorded on another ground, and it is hard to view the above 1 or 4-2's signature affixed under the above loan 1's name and seal affixed under the above loan 1's name and seal affixed under the above 3-2's name and seal affixed under the above loan 1's name and seal affixed under the above 1's name and seal affixed under the above 3-2's name and seal affixed under the above 1's name and seal affixed under the above 1's name and seal affixed under the above 2's name and seal affixed under the above 1's name and seal affixed under the above 1's name and seal attached to the above 2's name and seal affixed.

Meanwhile, according to the list, such as the witness of the records of this case, the defendant applied for a seal appraisal at the 3th day for pleading of the first instance court, but withdrawn it on the 7th day for pleading of pleading, but applied for a seal appraisal again at the 7th day for pleading of pleading, but the court below did not adopt it. In this case, the basic issue in this case is whether the defendant's name under Gap evidence No. 1 was authentic or forged or not, and according to the above, the facts of this part in this case are not objectively obvious. Thus, the court below, which is a fact-finding court, should clarify the facts of this case if it can be confirmed by the method of appraisal. The court below's determination of the facts of this case by recognizing the authenticity by only the testimony of the above witness who is in conflict with the interests of the defendant in this case, and it should be deemed that the confirmation of the facts of this case should be a serious hearing to the extent that this affected the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)