2015Da70624 Compensation for damages

Y. Myun (Boune before Change: Macoo)

Cambodia Gaz. Gaz. LTD

Busan High Court Decision 2014Na2143 decided October 15, 2015

September 28, 2016

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The submission or delivery of a document shall be made as the original, and the submission of evidence by only a copy of a document shall be, in principle, unlawful because it does not guarantee accuracy. Thus, if there is 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 substitution of the original, a copy may not be substituted by the original. On the other hand, if a copy is submitted as the original, the copy shall not be an independent documentary evidence, or, on the other hand, the original shall not be deemed to have been submitted. In this case, there is no evidence that there is the same original as the copy by evidence, and the original is not recognized to have been duly established. However, if the applicant for a copy of a document loses the original document in good faith, or if a third party who does not have an obligation to comply with an order to submit a document holds the original document, it shall be deemed that the document cannot be submitted to the Plaintiff or if it is not submitted to the other party for the submission of the original document, it shall be deemed that 2010 or 300.

However, according to the records, the defendant asserted that the person in charge of the Chinese agency, claiming that the bill of lading was issued by proxy according to the charter contract of this case, submitted the copy of the standardized terms and conditions (No. 17) as the copy of the bill of this case where the sign of "Oriinal" and the sign of "Oriinal" affixed a seal thereto, and the copy of the standardized terms and conditions (No. 17) are the copies of the bill of this case. It can be known that the defendant presented the evidence to prove the existence and authenticity of the original copy of Eul evidence No. 17 and the authenticity of the establishment as evidence (No. 21, No. 23) in the same form as Eul evidence No. 17, and the standard form (No. 21, No. 23, No. 17, the copy of the bill of this case is the same as the original bill of this case).

3. Examining the above circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, since the Plaintiff did not submit the original copy of the evidence No. 17, the existence and authenticity of the original copy of the evidence No. 17 containing the back of the standardized terms and conditions should be proven as evidence. Of the materials submitted, the mail bags, which appears to have been sent from the standard form of the bill of lading or from the Chinese agency, cannot be deemed to have the real value of evidence. The document (Evidence No. 22) stating that the copy is identical to the original copy on the cover of the evidence No. 17, cannot be seen as having been known. Moreover, even if the Defendant’s Chinese agency prepared it, no other evidence exists to acknowledge the existence of the original copy of the evidence No. 17 and the authenticity thereof. Accordingly, there is no evidence to acknowledge the existence of the original copy of the document No. 17, even if there is no evidence to prove that there is any more evidence than the original copy of the document No. 17.

4. Nevertheless, the lower court which recognized the issuance and delivery of the instant bill of lading erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the value of evidence in the documentary evidence investigation submitted, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

5. Therefore, 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 on the bench.

Justices Kim In-bok

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Kim Gin-young

Chief Justice Lee Dong-won