beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) around February 20, 2010, lent KRW 10,000 to the net F, and (b) the networkF died on November 21, 2012; and (c) the Defendants, as the heir of the networkF, should pay the said loan to the Plaintiff in accordance with the inheritance shares.
2. In the case of a dispute over the existence of the original and the authenticity of the establishment of the original, and there is an objection from the other party against the other party to make a copy as a substitute for the original, the copy may not substitute for the original. On the other hand, if the copy is submitted as a substitute for the original, the copy shall not be an independent documentary evidence, or otherwise, it shall not be deemed to have been submitted by the original, but, in this case, there is no evidence beyond that there is a copy of the same content as the copy by evidence, and unless it is recognized that the original has been duly established by the evidence.
The applicant party lost the original document.
If the document is damaged in good faith, or if a third party who does not have an obligation to comply with the order to submit the document holds the original of the document, it is impossible to submit the original document or is not required to submit the original document in an unrealistic situation, such as where the original is a document of a large quantity, etc. However, in such cases, the applicant party to the document must assert and prove the specific reasons why the submission of the document is legitimate for the submission of the original document.
(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da66133 delivered on August 23, 2002). The plaintiff submitted the evidence No. 1 to the court of first instance. However, since the evidence No. 1 submitted by the defendants as a copy of this court denies the authenticity of this court, the plaintiff cannot substitute the original as a copy. In such a case, the plaintiff must prove that the existence of the original and the original were duly constituted, and the plaintiff must prove the existence of the original evidence No. 1 and its existence.