beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning Plaintiff Net C is modified as follows.
The Defendants jointly do so to Plaintiff V 13.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s “C” is dismissed as “C” and the following is added; and (b) the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
f. C: (a) died on August 10, 2019 during the instant appellate trial; (b) among C’s inheritors, W, X, a child of the Busan Family Court, renounced inheritance as 2019-Ma201379; and (c) Plaintiff V, a spouse of the instant appellate court, was granted an inheritance-limited approval as the Busan Family Court 2019-Ma201377. Accordingly, Plaintiff V became the sole inheritor of C’s instant appellate court.
2. Determination as to the plaintiff A and B's claims
A. If the authenticity of the seal imprinted by the person who signed and sealed the document as to whether the document was authentic as to Gap’s evidence Nos. 2 (hereinafter “this case’s promise”) is affixed, barring any special circumstance, it is presumed that the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person who signed the document. Once the authenticity of the seal is presumed, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act; however, if it is proved that the act of affixing the seal was made by a person other than the person who signed the document, the document presenter is liable to prove that the act of affixing the seal was based on a legitimate title delegated by the person who signed the document.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da69686 Decided April 8, 2003). The Defendants acknowledged the fact that the part of the Defendants’ seal affixed to the instant undertaking was affixed with the seals of the Defendants. Thus, the Defendants asserted to the effect that they denied the portion of the seal by asserting that it was not the original seal of the Defendants, but the Defendants asserted to the effect that it was not the original seal of the Defendants, but acknowledged that the Defendants’ seal affixed to the instant undertaking was based on the seal of the Defendants.
The authenticity of the instant promise is presumed to be established.