Open Decision Ledger · Civil procedure & enforcement
Documents evidencing a legal relationship in an action to confirm genuineness
Supreme Court, June 14, 2007, 2005Da29290 (judgment)
Case name: 증서진부확인·계약금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Under Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act, is a receipt written to prove that a sum was received as a lease deposit a document that evidences a legal relationship, so that an action to confirm its genuineness lies, and is there confirmation interest in such an action where a lawsuit over that legal relationship has already been brought?
Holding
It does not. A confirmation action under Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act lies only against a document that directly evidences a legal relationship, meaning a document from whose contents the existence or non-existence of a certain current legal relationship can be directly proved. A receipt drawn up to prove that a sum was received as a lease deposit does not, absent special circumstances, directly prove the existence or non-existence of the lease, so its genuineness cannot be confirmed; and where a lawsuit over the legal relationship that the document should prove has already been brought, a separate action to confirm the document's genuineness is without interest in confirmation absent special circumstances.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
증서의 진정 여부를 확인하는 소의 대상이 되는 서면은 직접 법률관계를 증명하는 서면에 한하고, ‘법률관계를 증명하는 서면’이란 그 기재 내용으로부터 직접 일정한 현재의 법률관계의 존부가 증명될 수 있는 서면을 말한다.
Unofficial English translation
A document that may be the subject of an action to confirm the genuineness of a document is limited to one that directly proves a legal relationship, and a "document that proves a legal relationship" means a document from whose content the existence or non-existence of a certain current legal relationship can be proved directly.
Disposition
Reversed and rendered by the Supreme Court Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고(반소원고) 1에 대한 부분 및 피고 (반소원고) 2 주식회사에 대한 영수증의 진정 여부 확인청구 부분을 파기하고, 제1심판결 중 같은 부분을 취소하며, 이 부분 소를 각하한다. 피고 (반소원고) 2 주식회사의 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below concerning Defendant (counterclaim plaintiff) 1 and the portion concerning the claim of Defendant (counterclaim plaintiff) 2 Co., Ltd. for confirmation of the genuineness of the receipt are reversed, the same portions of the judgment of the court of first instance are set aside, and the action in this part is dismissed on procedural grounds. The remainder of the final appeal of Defendant (counterclaim plaintiff) 2 Co., Ltd. is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
증서의 진정 여부를 확인하는 소가 적법하기 위해서는 그 서면에 대한 진정 여부의 확인을 구할 이익이 있어야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
For an action to confirm the genuineness of a document to be lawful, there must be an interest in confirmation in seeking confirmation of the genuineness of that document.
Factors
- 증서의 진정 여부를 확인하는 소의 대상이 되는 서면은 직접 법률관계를 증명하는 서면에 한하고
- 그 기재 내용으로부터 직접 일정한 현재의 법률관계의 존부가 증명될 수 있는 서면을 말한다
- 임대차계약금으로 일정한 금원을 받았음을 증명하기 위하여 작성된 영수증은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 임대차 등 법률관계의 성립 내지 존부를 직접 증명하는 서면이 아니므로
- 법률관계에 관한 분쟁 그 자체가 해결되거나 적어도 분쟁 자체의 해결에 크게 도움이 된다는 데 있으므로
- 어느 서면에 의하여 증명되어야 할 법률관계를 둘러싸고 이미 소가 제기되어 있는 경우에는
Unofficial English translation
• A document that may be the subject of an action to confirm the genuineness of a document is limited to one that directly proves a legal relationship, and
• means a document from whose content the existence or non-existence of a certain current legal relationship can be proved directly
• A receipt prepared to prove that a certain sum of money was received as a lease deposit is not, absent special circumstances, a document directly proving the formation or existence of a legal relationship such as a lease, and therefore
• lies in that the dispute over the legal relationship itself is resolved, or at least is of great help in resolving the dispute itself
• where an action has already been filed over a legal relationship to be proved by a certain document,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2001. 12. 14. 선고 2001다53714 판결(공2002상, 289)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2001Da53714 decided December 14, 2001 (Gong 2002 Sang, 289)
Decisions referred to
[1][3] 대법원 2001. 12. 14. 선고 2001다53714 판결(공2002상, 289) / [1] 대법원 1967. 3. 21. 선고 66다2154 판결(집15-1, 민233) / [3] 대법원 1991. 12. 10. 선고 91다15317 판결(공1992, 479)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What special circumstances would make a lease deposit receipt itself directly prove the existence of the lease, so that its genuineness may be confirmed?
A later decision treating a receipt or a similar summary document as directly evidencing a legal relationship would require this entry to be read again, as would an amendment to Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act. The outcome of Defendant 1's suit of 28 February 2001 on the same documents would also show whether a separate confirmation action became necessary.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “What special circumstances would make a lease deposit receipt itself directly prove the existence of the lease, so that its genuineness may be confirmed?” vs Independent “What special circumstances would justify a separate authenticity action despite pending litigation over the underlying legal relationship?”
The primary reading asks about exceptions allowing a receipt to prove the legal relationship directly, whereas the independent reading asks about exceptions allowing a separate action despite pending litigation.
증서의 진정 여부를 확인하는 소의 대상이 되는 서면은 직접 법률관계를 증명하는 서면에 한하고, ‘법률관계를 증명하는 서면’이란 그 기재 내용으로부터 직접 일정한 현재의 법률관계의 존부가 증명될 수 있는 서면을 말한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 28 April 2005 (2004Na6162, 2004Na6179), did not examine whether the receipts were eligible for a confirmation action and went straight to the merits. It also proceeded on the footing that the plaintiff had an interest in confirming the lease contract, the undertaking note and the payment note, documents Defendant 1 had put in evidence in his own earlier money claim. On the second ground of appeal it found, from the evidence taken together, that the plaintiff's cousin had written the lease contract in the plaintiff's name for Company 2 without authority.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that a receipt proving receipt of a lease deposit does not directly prove the existence of the lease, so the claim to confirm its genuineness against Company 2 was improper and was dismissed. As to Defendant 1, because he had already sued on 28 February 2001 relying on the lease contract, the receipt, the undertaking note and the payment note, the plaintiff had no interest in confirming those documents separately, and the whole of the judgment against Defendant 1 had to be reversed. It found no error in the finding that the cousin wrote the lease contract in the plaintiff's name for Company 2 without authority, so Company 2's remaining appeal was dismissed.
Distinguishing conditions
- A document from whose contents the existence or non-existence of a current legal relationship is directly proved, so that it is itself a document evidencing a legal relationship.
- A confirmation action in which special circumstances are shown, or where no lawsuit over the legal relationship the document should prove is already pending, so that the Court's ground for finding no confirmation interest does not apply.
- A receipt accompanied by circumstances from which the lease itself is directly proved, since the Court excluded such a receipt only in the absence of special circumstances.
Record verification notes
Set the date of the confirmation action against the date of any earlier suit over the same lease, deposit and penalty, since the Court found no confirmation interest where that suit came first. Then match the contents of each document against the definition and ask whether it directly proves a current legal relationship. Finally collect what the other side asserts about who drew each document up, since the Court's reasoning that the plaintiff had an interest in the contract documents rested on the defendants' own assertion that the plaintiff wrote them, alternatively that apparent agency under Article 125 or Article 126 of the Civil Act made them his.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 증서의 진정 여부를 확인하는 소의 대상이 되는 ‘법률관계를 증명하는 서면’의 의미 [2] 임대차계약금으로 일정한 금원을 받았음을 증명하기 위하여 작성된 영수증은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 임대차 등 법률관계의 성립 내지 존부를 직접 증명하는 서면이 아니므로 증서의 진정 여부를 확인하는 소의 대상이 될 수 없다고 한 사례 [3] 민사소송법 제250조에서 증서의 진정 여부를 확인하는 소를 허용하고 있는 이유 및 그 제소 요건 [4] 어느 서면에 의하여 증명되어야 할 법률관계를 둘러싸고 이미 소가 제기되어 있는 경우에 그와 별도로 그 서면에 대한 진정 여부를 확인하는 소를 제기할 확인의 이익이 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] The meaning of a "document that proves a legal relationship" which is the subject of an action to confirm the genuineness of a document [2] A case in which it was held that a receipt prepared to prove that a certain sum of money was received as a lease deposit is not, absent special circumstances, a document directly proving the formation or existence of a legal relationship such as a lease, and therefore cannot be the subject of an action to confirm the genuineness of a document [3] The reason why Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act permits an action to confirm the genuineness of a document, and the requirements for bringing such an action [4] Whether, where an action has already been filed over a legal relationship to be proved by a certain document, there is an interest in confirmation in separately bringing an action to confirm the genuineness of that document (negative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 민사소송법 제250조는 "확인의 소는 법률관계를 증명하는 서면이 진정한지 아닌지를 확정하기 위하여서도 제기할 수 있다"고 규정하고 있으므로, 증서의 진정 여부를 확인하는 소의 대상이 되는 서면은 직접 법률관계를 증명하는 서면에 한하고, ‘법률관계를 증명하는 서면’이란 그 기재 내용으로부터 직접 일정한 현재의 법률관계의 존부가 증명될 수 있는 서면을 말한다. [2] 임대차계약금으로 일정한 금원을 받았음을 증명하기 위하여 작성된 영수증은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 임대차 등 법률관계의 성립 내지 존부를 직접 증명하는 서면이 아니므로 증서의 진정 여부를 확인하는 소의 대상이 될 수 없다고 한 사례. [3] 민사소송법 제250조에서 증서의 진정 여부를 확인하는 소를 허용하고 있는 이유는 법률관계를 증명하는 서면의 진정 여부가 확정되면 당사자가 그 서면의 진정 여부에 관하여 더 이상 다툴 수 없게 되는 결과, 법률관계에 관한 분쟁 그 자체가 해결되거나 적어도 분쟁 자체의 해결에 크게 도움이 된다는 데 있으므로, 증서의 진정 여부를 확인하는 소가 적법하기 위해서는 그 서면에 대한 진정 여부의 확인을 구할 이익이 있어야 한다. [4] 어느 서면에 의하여 증명되어야 할 법률관계를 둘러싸고 이미 소가 제기되어 있는 경우에는 그 소송에서 분쟁을 해결하면 되므로 그와 별도로 그 서면에 대한 진정 여부를 확인하는 소를 제기하는 것은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 확인의 이익이 없다.
Order
원심판결 중 피고(반소원고) 1에 대한 부분 및 피고 (반소원고) 2 주식회사에 대한 영수증의 진정 여부 확인청구 부분을 파기하고, 제1심판결 중 같은 부분을 취소하며, 이 부분 소를 각하한다. 피고 (반소원고) 2 주식회사의 나머지 상고를 기각한다. 원고(반소피고)와 피고(반소원고)들 사이의 소송총비용은 각자가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below concerning Defendant (counterclaim plaintiff) 1 and the portion concerning the claim of Defendant (counterclaim plaintiff) 2 Co., Ltd. for confirmation of the genuineness of the receipt are reversed, the same portions of the judgment of the court of first instance are set aside, and the action in this part is dismissed on procedural grounds. The remainder of the final appeal of Defendant (counterclaim plaintiff) 2 Co., Ltd. is dismissed. Each party shall bear their own costs of the entire civil action between the plaintiff (counterclaim defendant) and the defendants (counterclaim plaintiffs).
Provisions referred to
[1] 민사소송법 제250조 / [2] 민사소송법 제250조 / [3] 민사소송법 제250조 [4] 민사소송법 제250조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger