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

[2] The case holding that since the authenticity of the letter of guarantee prepared by a local notarial office in the Philippines is presumed to have been established, the fact of guarantee should be recognized in accordance with the contents

[1] Articles 202 and 358 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 202 and 358 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 428 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da16601 delivered on February 10, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1290) Supreme Court Decision 2004Da67264 delivered on May 13, 2005 (Gong2005Sang, 947)

[Defendant-Appellee] U-Jice Coar Ltd. (Attorney Cho Sung-hee et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellee)

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Na104308 Delivered on August 11, 2006

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The judgment of the court below

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that, with respect to the plaintiff's assertion that non-party 1 et al. guaranteed the obligation for the purchase price of the goods of this case purchased on credit from the plaintiff on the part of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter "the obligation for the purchase price of the goods of this case"), there is no evidence that the defendant guaranteed the obligation for the purchase price of the goods of this case. However, according to the evidence No. 10 (English stamp; hereinafter "the letter of the case of this case"), the defendant signed the letter of this case that he would be liable as a guarantor for the obligation for the purchase price of the goods of this case on March 4, 2003, but it is recognized that the defendant signed the letter of this case on March 4, 2003. Meanwhile, in full view of the purport of the argument of the witness non-party 2 of the court below, without properly verifying the contents of the letter of this case, the defendant did not recognize the fact that the plaintiff believed the signature only on the part of the plaintiff 1 et al., and there is no evidence to acknowledge evidence.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

However, we cannot accept the above decision of the court below for the following reasons.

As long as the establishment of a disposal document is recognized as authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the expression of intent as stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that the content of the statement is denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da23482, Jun. 28, 2002; 2004Da67264, 67271, May 13, 2005).

According to the records, the author of this case is a document drawn up at the local notarial office of the Philippines, and the defendant and the non-party 2 directly attended as the agent of the plaintiff company as the guarantor, and confirmed the contents thereof in the presence of a notary public, and signed in the presence of a notary public. In addition, as the defendant himself acknowledges the fact that he signed the letter of this case, the authenticity shall be presumed to have been established. Thus, unless there are special circumstances to deny the contents of the statement, the court shall recognize the guarantee in accordance with the contents of the statement.

Although the court below rejected the probative value of the written test of this case on the ground of the non-party 2's testimony, unlike the form and text of the written test of this case, the non-party 2 signed the written test of this case on the same page as the defendant, not on the other hand, but on the other hand, unlike the form and text of the written test of this case, it is difficult to understand that the defendant knew of the circumstances or reasons why the defendant signed the written test of this case. Further, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case with the non-party 2 as a co-defendant on the ground that the defendant guaranteed the price liability of the goods of this case with the defendant, but the non-party 2 did not dispute at all at the court of first instance, and it was sentenced to the plaintiff in favor of the plaintiff by the confession of this case, and in light of the circumstances where the court of first instance became final and conclusive on the ground that the non-party 2's statement was dismissed without correction, it is difficult to believe the credibility of the written test of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the remaining plaintiff's assertion that rejected the probative value of the letter of intent of this case merely based on its stated reasoning. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the probative value of the disposal document or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. 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 Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)