[1] The case reversing the court below's rejection of formal evidence of the private document on the ground that the authenticity of the private document was not denied unless the person who prepared the private document proves that the authenticity of the document was stolen or forged, on the ground that, although the person who prepared the private document made a statement to the effect that the stamp image on the private document was based on his true seal, and that it is deemed identical in view of the comparison between the stamp image on his personal seal impression issued by the person who prepared the document and the stamp image on the private document entrusted to another person and the stamp image on the private document, the court below stated that the person who prepared the document stated that the stamp image on the private document was authentic or forged

[2] The probative value of a disposal document recognized as authentic

[1] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which rejected the formal admissibility of the private document on the ground that the authenticity of the private document was not denied unless the person who prepared the private document proves that the authenticity of the private document was made stolen or forged, on the ground that the person who prepared the private document made a statement to the effect that the stamp image on the private document was based on his true seal, and that it is deemed identical in light of the comparison between the stamp image on his personal seal impression issued by the person who prepared the document and the stamp image on the private document entrusted to another person and the stamp image on the private document, the court below added an examination on the authenticity of the stamp image to the person who prepared the private document, and accordingly, did not prove that the authenticity of the private document was made by mistake or forged

[2] In a case where the authenticity of a dispositive document is recognized, the existence of a juristic act in its content must be recognized unless there are special circumstances to the contrary, even if the existence and content of the expression of intent indicated in the document are clear and acceptable.

[1] Articles 126, 329, and 330 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 105 of the Civil Act, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da30712 delivered on November 12, 1991 (Gong1992, 111), Supreme Court Decision 95Da38240 delivered on December 12, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 243) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 89Meu16505 delivered on March 23, 1990 (Gong190, 944) Supreme Court Decision 97Da1013 delivered on January 21, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 451)

Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (Aju Comprehensive Law Firm, Attorneys Kim Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 99Na89603 delivered on June 15, 2000

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, either directly or on behalf of the defendant, jointly and severally, guaranteed the obligation of indemnity to the plaintiff by Nonparty 1.

According to the records, the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (each agreement) states that the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of indemnity to be borne by the non-party company to the plaintiff, and the seal affixed to the defendant's name next to the defendant's name is affixed, and the defendant argued that the authenticity of these agreements is a site and argued as to whether it is true

However, with respect to these agreements, the defendant made a statement to the purport that the stamp image affixed on the column of joint and several sureties is based on the defendant's true seal under the agreement, such as that it is necessary for the non-party 2, who is the director of the non-party company, to register the new defendant's seal or the defendant as the auditor of the company in the course of the company's establishment, and that the non-party 1, who is an employee of the company, was prepared using the certificate of the non-party company's seal impression. Thus, unless there is any counter-proof, the stamp image on the column of joint and several sureties under these agreements can be presumed to have been withdrawn by the defendant's will and the authenticity can be presumed to have been established pursuant to Article 329 of the Civil Procedure Act. On the other hand, the defendant's certificate of the personal seal impression affixed on the non-party 1, who is the director of the non-party company, to issue the certificate necessary for the preparation of these agreements, is also deemed to have been identical by comparing it with the paper.

Therefore, the court below should have added the examination of the authenticity of the documentary evidence to the defendant, who is the title holder of these agreements, and did not reject the formal evidence of the written agreement, on the ground that the defendant, who is the title holder of these agreements, respondeded to the formation of the written agreement, but rather, based on whether the stamp image attached to the written agreement is made by the defendant or not, and asked the defendant about the authenticity of the documentary evidence, and as a result, give the plaintiff an opportunity to prove the authenticity of the documentary evidence by comparison, etc. of the stamp image (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da30712, Nov. 12, 1991). If the authenticity of the written agreement is presumed as a result, it cannot be denied unless the defendant proves that his seal was stolen or forged.

In addition, the joint and several surety part of these agreements is a disposal document stating the purport that the defendant is jointly and severally liable for indemnity against the plaintiff of the non-party company, and the disposal document should recognize the existence of a juristic act in its content, unless there are any special circumstances that clearly and clearly acceptable to deny the existence and content of the expression of intent indicated in the document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Meu16505, Mar. 23, 1990; 97Da1013, Jan. 21, 200). According to the contents of these agreements, there is no room to acknowledge the fact that the defendant has concluded the joint and several surety agreement in this case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the authenticity of private documents and the probative value of disposal documents, and since such illegality has influenced the conclusion of the judgment, the part pointing this out in the grounds of appeal is justified.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)