If there is a dispute as to the existence of the original and the authenticity of the establishment, the effect of the submission of a copy as a documentary evidence and the submission of a documentary evidence, and if the submission of the original is not required, the burden of proof.

Article 355 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Doz., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Limited Liability Company Specialized in Full-Time Securitization

Defendant

Intervenor joining the Intervenor

Daegu District Court Decision 2008Na17760 Decided November 5, 2009

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The submission of a document shall be made as the original, and the submission of a document by a simple copy shall be, in principle, illegal because there is no accuracy guarantee. Thus, if there is 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 to the substitution of the original, a copy shall not be substituted by the original. On the other hand, if the copy is submitted as the original, it shall not be an independent documentary evidence, but it shall not be deemed that the copy has been submitted. In this case, unless there is any same original as the copy by evidence, and it is recognized that the original has been duly formed, there is no evidence that there is such a copy. However, if the applicant for a documentary copy loses the original document in good faith, or if a third party who does not have an obligation to comply with the order to submit the document is in possession of the original document, it shall not be able to submit the original document, or if it is not required to submit it in a non-realistic situation, it shall not be able to present the original document.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion and accepted the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the written application for the settlement of ice (Evidence No. 6, hereinafter referred to as "Evidence No. 6") recorded as joint and several surety by the defendant as a result of the written appraisal is recognized as the defendant's own pen, and thus the authenticity of Evidence No. 6 can be recognized.

According to the records, the plaintiff submitted the "Dulball Settlement Application" as a joint and several surety by the defendant, and the defendant continuously demanded the plaintiff to submit the original document No. 6, and raised an objection as to the existence of the original document and the authenticity of the establishment of the original document. Nevertheless, the plaintiff did not submit the original document without assertion and proof as to the specific reasons for the non-submission of the original document No. 6.

Examining the above circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, since the Plaintiff did not submit the original evidence No. 6, and did not prove specific reasons that are justifiable for the submission of the original copy, the evidence No. 6 is not worth as evidence proving the Defendant’s joint and several liability.

Nevertheless, the court below which acknowledged the value of evidence of the stated facts without any particular deliberation as to whether the original evidence No. 6 exists is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the value of evidence in the examination of documentary evidence submitted by the copy, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment 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 Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)