(a) The case holding that there is an error of law in the misapprehension of reason and incomplete hearing that a document shall be written in writing, which refers to a certain document on the records;

B. The court's measure in the case where the defendant asserts that the defendant was forged as a result of the denial in the process of affixing a documentary evidence

A. The case holding that the court below erred in the incomplete hearing or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, on the ground that the document indicated in Eul's Nos. 2-1 and 2-2, among the documents kept in the record, is not visible, and the name of Eul Nos. 2-1 and 2-2 is stated in the list of documentary evidence, and the document is submitted on the date of eight pleadings.

B. The defendant's seal is affixed to his seal imprint, which appears to be the defendant's seal imprint, and if the defendant made a plea to the evidence that it was forged while disputing the denial in the procedure of his seal imprint, the part of the seal imprint on the premise that the defendant's above seal imprints the defendant's seal affixed on his own seal, but it is time to affix the seal on the premise that the above seal imprints the seal affixed on his own seal, but since the seal affixed without the defendant's intention, it is not clear whether the above document is a forged defense, or that the seal itself is a forged, and therefore the formation of the above document is denied. Thus, the court should clarify this point and make a deliberation on the forgery of the above seal imprints, and then determine whether the document is authentic

(a)Article 329(b) of the Civil Procedure Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 88Meu31095 Decided June 26, 1990

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 92Na41275 delivered on June 3, 1993

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with respect to the claim for ownership transfer registration on the ground of sale and purchase on December 30, 1987, the court below denied the admissibility of evidence by recognizing that the part of the defendant's preparing document No. 4 (a sale contract) was the defendant, although there is no dispute between the parties that the part of the defendant's preparing document No. 4 (a sale contract) was the defendant, but the non-party 1, who is the defendant's wife, was forged according to the purport

However, according to the testimony of the above non-party 1, he decided to purchase an apartment under the name of the defendant with the consent of the defendant as the wife of the defendant, and delivered the defendant's seal impression and all documents necessary for obtaining the right to occupy the apartment under the name of the defendant. The defendant's seal impression and resident registration certificate was issued to the plaintiff, and the certificate of seal impression for contract was issued directly by the witness when preparing the contract, so it is difficult to recognize the forgery of the evidence No. 4 by the testimony. In addition, in this case where other evidence or circumstances do not peep, it is not possible to recognize the forgery of the fact of forgery because it added to the whole purport of pleading.

Of course, even if the evidence No. 4 was not forged, its contents are the fact that the defendant entered into the apartment sale contract in this case between the defendant and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City. Thus, even if the defendant can be delegated to the above non-party No. 1, it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant's delegation of the authority to execute the sale contract in this case's apartment sale. However, according to the evidence No. 10-2 (Certificate of Seal Imprint) that the court below rejected, according to the defendant's entry of No. 10-1 and No. 2 (Certificate of Seal Imprint), it can be known that the defendant was directly issued the certificate of seal impression for the purpose that the non-party No. 2 as the plaintiff's husband was the buyer on May 31, 191. Thus, if the evidence No. 4 was collected, it cannot be viewed that the court below delegated the authority to sell the status of the purchaser of the apartment in this case to the non-party No. 4.

2. In addition, the court below recognized the fact that the above non-party 2, who represented the defendant and the plaintiff by the testimony of the non-party 2 and the non-party 2, on January 24, 1989, had cancelled the agreement on the transfer of the right of sale of this case on or around the date of the non-party 2's testimony of the non-party 1, Eul Nos. 1, 2-2, and 4-2 (subject to the issuance of a certificate of seal imprint), and according to the records of Eul No. 4-2 (certificate of seal imprint), the defendant was issued a certificate of seal impression for the purpose of title trust, for confirmation of facts, for identification of facts, for delegation, for delegation, notarial act, or for waiver of apartment sale, the defendant cannot be deemed to have cancelled the agreement on the transfer of the right of sale of this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the statement of Eul No. 1 (each) or the testimony of the non-party 2, as well as the testimony of the witness.

3. If a party submits a documentary evidence, the court shall indicate the number of documentary evidence attached to the record, and state the number of documentary evidence attached to the documentary evidence attached to the documentary evidence attached to the pleading protocol, the date for pleading, the name of the number of documentary evidence attached with documentary evidence attached to the documentary evidence attached to the documentary evidence attached to the documentary evidence list, and the summary of the seal. Examining the records, although the number of documentary evidence No. 1 is not stated in the documentary evidence list, it is merely stated in the document attached to the documentary evidence list as "B 1" and it is merely stated in the document attached to the recorded 5 pages, and it does not appear in the document attached to Eul No. 2-1 and 2 among the documents attached to the record, and it is stated that the name of documentary evidence No. 2-1 and 2 was submitted on the date for issuance of a certificate of seal imprint, and there is no indication of the number of documentary evidence attached to it, the court below did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by failing to exhaust any error in the misapprehension of evidence as above.

On the second ground for appeal

1. In addition, the court below rejected the claim for the transfer registration of ownership based on the transfer agreement on May 16, 1989, on the ground that the evidence No. 9-5 (transfer and takeover) cannot be used as evidence because there is no evidence to prove the authenticity, and each of the evidence No. 10-1 and No. 10-2 is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

2. In a case where it is recognized that the seal imprinted by the seal imprinted by the seal imprinted by the person in whose name the document is written is affixed, the establishment of the seal imprint, that is, the act of affixing the seal shall be presumed to have been carried out based on the intention of the person in whose name the document is written, barring special circumstances, and if the authenticity of the seal is presumed to have been made, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been made. Therefore, the person who asserts that the document is authentic, but the document is forged, needs to prove that the document is affixed against the will of the person in whose name it is written,

However, according to the records of this case and the list of documentary evidence, the above evidence No. 9-5 is affixed with the seal of the defendant, and this is also seen as the defendant's seal imprint (refer to the evidence No. 5 and No. 104 of the record). The defendant's assertion that the defendant has forged the seal while disputing the denial in the procedures for the seal No. 9-5 of the certificate. The purport of the statement is that the defendant affixed the seal on the premise that the seal No. 9-5 of the above document was affixed on his own seal, but the seal is affixed without the defendant's intention, and thus, it is unclear whether the above document is a forged document, or that the seal itself is a forged document is denied. Thus, the court below should clarify this point and make a deliberation on the forgery of the above document, and then determine the authenticity of the document after which the court below did not reach this point.

The issue is justified within this scope.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)