beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined
A. 1) The Plaintiff’s evidence No. 2 (former Sales Contract) as to the authenticity of the original is obvious that the document No. 2 (former Sales Contract) is identical to the original in external form, and thus, the authenticity of the document should be recognized. Therefore, the Defendants’ respective transfer registrations are false, and thus, the submission of the document is invalid. 2) The submission of the document is not the original, but the mere copy is inappropriate as evidence, in principle, since there is no accuracy guarantee. Thus, there is no dispute over the existence of the original and the authenticity of the establishment of the original, and if there is an objection against the other party on the representation of the original, the copy cannot be substituted by the original. On the other hand, if the copy is submitted as the original, the copy shall not be deemed to be an independent documentary evidence, but if it is submitted as the original, it shall not be deemed to have been submitted by the original, and as long as it is not recognized that the original is true and correct, there is no more evidence that there is such content.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da96403 Decided February 25, 2010) insofar as the Plaintiff failed to submit the original copy of the evidence No. 2 (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da96403, Feb. 25, 2010) the Plaintiff’s testimony by the witness witness No. 2, 2, 8-1, and N of the first instance trial alone is insufficient to believe that the original evidence No. 2 exists or that the original was duly established, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. (b) The Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit. Whether the substantive content of the instant guarantee certificate is false or not, the Plaintiff and 1)