사문서에서 날인의 진정 추정을 번복시키기 위한 증명의 정도

In light of the importance of documentary evidence in civil trials, when the other party to the document submitter disputes the authenticity of a private document, the issue of which party must prove to what extent to recognize authenticity or deny authenticity is a particularly important matter in civil trial practice. In relation to establishing the authenticity of a private document, the stage of presumption from ‘identity of seal’ to ‘authenticity of seal’ is a de facto presumption, so the burden of proving ‘authenticity of seal’ still lies with the document submitter. Therefore, in order to overturn the presumption of ‘authenticity of seal’, the other party does not need to prove facts contrary to the required facts, but it is sufficient to raise the judge’s doubts about the existence of the required facts through indirect counterevidence. Most academic theories and mainstream precedents support this position. Nevertheless, some Supreme Court rulings maintain that if the other party to the person submitting documentary evidence acknowledges the identity of the seal but claims that the seal has been misused, the other party is required to prove the fact of the misuse with convincing evidence and if efforts from both sides do not convince judge, it is judged that the first stage presumption was maintained, but this conflicts with the mainstream ruling. Resolving this conflict is an urgent task for the Supreme Court.