1. Case Overview
a. Party Represented by Barun Law
The defendants (School Foundation A, the heirs of the late Mr. B, who was its president, and Mr. C).
b. Background of the case
The plaintiff (selected party), who once served as the administrative director of School Foundation A, demanded that the defendants, including School Foundation A, the late Mr. B, and Mr. C, repay debts based on six disposition documents listing them as debtors.
c. Details of the lawsuit
The key issue was whether the six disposition documents allegedly supporting the loan claim were authentic, leading to a document examination. The examiner acknowledged the consistency of the seals on the documents but noted the possibility of imitated handwriting and unusual characteristics in the formation of the documents.
2. Judgment
Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2021Gahap446, dated June 24, 2024
3. Grounds for the Judgment
The court ruled that considering the strong evidentiary power of disposition documents, caution is necessary in presuming authenticity based solely on seal consistency. This is particularly true when the holder of the documents would use the seal under the authorization of the nominal owner of the documents in performing his or her duties.
Based on this principle, the court found that the seals on the disposition documents were consistent with the official seal, but dismissed all the plaintiff’s claims on the following findings:
1) The plaintiff previously served as the administrative director of the defendant School Foundation A;
2) The examiner pointed out the possibility of imitated handwriting and unusual characteristics in the documents;
3) The plaintiff did not comply with the court’s document submission order;
4) Despite the possibility of official examination during the ongoing lawsuit, the plaintiff's privately conducted examination results should be considered with caution; and
5)Loans to the defendant School Foundation A had no effect because they violated the Private School Act, and there was no evidence showing that loans had been actually delivered to the defendant School Foundation A.
4. Our Argument and Role
We meticulously reviewed the principles concerning the authenticity of the documents and strongly contested the evidentiary power of the six disposition documents submitted by the plaintiff. Specifically, for some of the documents, despite the existence of examination results from investigative agencies in related criminal cases, we successfully led the court to accept our request for an official handwriting examination.
Additionally, we analyzed and actively cited favorable reasoning from various related cases between the plaintiff and the defendants to support our case.
5. Significance of the Judgment
This judgment, despite the prima facie case of seal consistency on the disposition documents, overturned the presumption of authenticity considering various suspicious circumstances. It aligns with the legal principle (Supreme Court Decision 2002Da34666, dated September 6, 2002) that emphasizes caution in finding the authenticity of disposition documents given their strong evidentiary power.
□ Attorneys in charge: Park Sung-ho, Min Kyung-chan and Moon Da-in
