In confirming the authenticity of documents under the name of the deceased, who is the deceased of the party, whether the said party should first confirm the authenticity of the deceased’s seal (negative)

In a case where the defendant did not affix his seal to the confirmation document, the defendant, who is not the person who prepared the confirmation document, is dissatisfied with the formation of the confirmation document. In such a case, the defendant can be determined by testimony, etc. of the witness. As long as the defendant is the successor of the person who prepared the confirmation document, and is not in the position of the person who prepared the document, and is not aware of the process of the document, it is clear whether the stamp image of the deceased was reproduced by his seal and thus, it is not necessary to determine the authenticity of the confirmation document.

Articles 126 and 328 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff (Aju General Law Firm, Attorneys Yellow-il et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Kang-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Jeju District Court Decision 96Na860 delivered on May 21, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the records, the plaintiff was prepared in the name of the deceased non-party 1 in the name of the court below 6th day for pleading, and his signature affixed under his name was translated by the non-party 2 and the notary public's Jeju Joint Law Office certified a translation, together with the above written confirmation. The defendant recognized only the portion of the above translation while he made the statement about it, and did not affix any other seal to the original document. Thus, the plaintiff tried to prove the authenticity of the above written confirmation through the examination of the witness 1 who is the witness who is the plaintiff's witness present at the above date for pleading. Thus, the court below's decision on the authenticity of the above written confirmation can be determined by the testimony, etc. of the above witness, and it can be determined not only by the non-party 1's heir, who is the above written confirmation, but also by the defendant's present document's present document's testimony, which is the document's present document's present document's signature, unless the defendant was aware of the authenticity of the above written confirmation.

The Supreme Court Decision 93Da35353 delivered on Jan. 25, 1994, where the theory of the lawsuit is written, is affixed with the seal which appears to be the defendant's seal impression in the relevant case, but the defendant made a plea to the evidence that the seal was forged as a result of the denial in the procedures for the seal of the documentary evidence.

Therefore, the judgment below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on presumption of the authenticity of private document and the probative value of the disposal document, such as the theory of lawsuit.

2. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, we affirm the decision of the court below that the testimony of the witness 1 of the court below that the evidence No. 8 was genuinely formed shall not be admitted as evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion because it is difficult to believe that the evidence No. 8 was not proven otherwise, and it is not different from that of the seal impression affixed to the certificate of personal seal impression (which is the certificate of personal seal impression at the time of 1953 and 1955 of the above deceased non-party 1) affixed to the above evidence No. 8, which was affixed to the above evidence No. 8, which was submitted only to the appellate brief of this case. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, the incomplete deliberation due to non-exercise of the right to ask for the name, and the violation of

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)