(a) Several appraisal results contrary to the same facts;

(b)whether or not the document has been altered immediately on the basis of the results of an appraisal that one of the two documents connected is transcribed;

(a) If there are several appraisal results contrary to one another with respect to a particular same fact, the court has recognized the fact under one of them, unless it violates the rules of experience or logic.

B. Since it is clear in light of the empirical rule that, if one of the multiple copies of a document connected with two pages is to be changed, all of them should be changed. Therefore, it is unlawful to recognize that the document was altered without any deliberation and determination as to the remaining parts of the document.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 71Da2091 delivered on November 23, 1971, 81Da13,14 delivered on June 8, 1982, and 82Nu289 delivered on June 14, 1983

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant-Appellee (Attorney Yoon Jae-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 83Na4805 delivered on July 6, 1984

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

If there are several appraisal results in conflict with any of the same facts, it is not easy to conclude that if the court recognizes the facts in accordance with any of them, it would be lawful unless it violates the rules of experience or logic (Supreme Court Decision 71Da2091 Decided November 23, 1971; Supreme Court Decision 81Da13,14 Decided June 8, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 83Da239 Decided June 14, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 82Nu289 Decided July 26, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 82Nu289 Decided June 14, 1983).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the result of appraisal by Nonparty 3 of the first instance court, contrary thereto, while recognizing the fact that the first part of the evidence No. 1 (Guarantee) was altered later by Nonparty 5, Nonparty 1’s appraisal result by Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2’s testimony by Nonparty 2 of the first instance court, and Defendant’s personal examination result.

According to the records, the above Gap evidence No. 1 is the document in two pages, and the statement of guarantee is written in the first chapter, the second chapter is written in the second chapter, and the address of the non-party 4, the guarantor, and the defendant is signed and sealed by them, and the second chapter is signed and sealed on the left side over the upper part of the back of the second chapter and the second chapter, and the defendant's seal is affixed on the right side. The contents of the above evidence which the court below believed by the court below are copied by the method of "personal electrical agent" (the part of the seal on the back of the second chapter among the defendant's personal seal No. 1 of the above evidence No. 1, which is the second part of the defendant's personal seal on the back of the second chapter among the defendant's personal seal of the above defendant No. 1, and it is transferred to another place). Therefore, the first chapter No. 1 of the above evidence was changed with the original document, and the contents of the evidence rejected by the court below are affixed directly to the defendant's evidence No. 1.

However, as seen earlier, the above Gap evidence No. 1 affixed the defendant's simple delivery seal, and according to the non-party 4's testimony of the non-party 1 witness of the court of first instance which the court below believed that the defendant's signature and sealed the above non-party 4, and according to the non-party 2's testimony that the defendant's inter-party 4 was killed, the above non-party 1's evidence No. 1 was proved that the above non-party 4 was not killed, and the above non-party 4's personal seal was affixed to the above non-party 4 and the above non-party 4's personal seal were not altered. Thus, if one of several documents connected to the two parties are changed, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that all of them should be altered, and the court below's decision that the non-party 1's evidence No. 1 of the above evidence No. 1 was reversed and it constitutes a violation of the rules of evidence No. 1 of the court below's judgment that the non-party 1's appraiser was killed.

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 Young-ju (Presiding Justice)