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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1.(a)

There is no special restriction on the method of proving the authenticity of a private document, the method of proof shall be reliable, and where the authenticity of the document is determined by the witness's testimony, a comprehensive examination of the reasonableness of the contents of testimony, the attitude of the witness's testimony, whether the document conforms with other evidence, the interest in the case of the witness, the relationship with the parties, etc. shall be

(1) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the existence and content of an expression of intent in accordance with the content of a document ought to be recognized unless there is any clear and acceptable proof that the content of the document is denied, in a case where the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, it should be determined with due care in light of the fact that the content of the document ought to be recognized unless there is any clear and acceptable proof that the content of the document is denied.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da34666, Sept. 6, 2002)

On the other hand, the submission of a document shall be the original, and the submission of evidence by a simple copy shall not be the original, but shall be, in principle, unlawful since there is no guarantee of 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 against the other party to the substitution of the original, the copy shall not be substituted by

On the other hand, if a copy is submitted as an original, it shall be independent documentary evidence, but instead, it shall not be deemed that the original has been submitted by it, and there is no evidence that there exists any same original as the copy by evidence and the original has been duly established unless it is recognized that the original has been duly established.

However, the applicant party lost the original document.

If the document is damaged in good faith, a third party who does not have an obligation to comply with the order to submit the document is in possession of the original document;