바카라온라인

1. Case Overview
a. Parties Represented by 바카라온라인
Defendants (School Foundation A, the heirs of the late B who served as its chairperson, and C)

b. Background of the Case
The plaintiff (a designated party), who had previously served as the head of the administrative office of School Foundation A, sought repayment of alleged debts from the defendants based on six dispositive documents in which the defendant school foundation, the late B, and defendant C were listed as debtors.

c. Proceedings
At the first instance, the central issue was whether the six dispositive documents forming the basis of the loan claims were authentically established, and handwriting and document examinations were therefore conducted. The expert opined that while the identity of the seals affixed to the dispositive documents could be acknowledged, the handwriting was likely to be imitated handwriting, and unusual and exceptional features were observed in the physical form of the documents.

At the appellate level, additional examinations were conducted on documents indirectly related to the case, which contained descriptions concerning the method of repayment of the alleged loans. With respect to these documents, the expert expressed the opinion that the handwriting was presumed to be handwritten by the relevant person.

2. Judgment
Seoul High Court Decision 2024Na2032769, dated November 13, 2025

3. Grounds for the Judgment
The court of first instance acknowledged that the seals affixed to the six dispositive documents were identical, but nevertheless dismissed all of the plaintiff’s claims based on the following findings:
(i) the plaintiff had previously served as the head of the administrative office of the defendant school foundation;
(ii) the expert had opined on the existence of imitated handwriting and the presence of unusual features in the documents;
(iii) the plaintiff had failed to comply with the court’s order to submit documents;
(바카라온라인) even though court-appointed examinations could have been requested during the pendency of the litigation, caution was required in adopting the results of privately commissioned examinations conducted unilaterally; and
(v) monetary loans to the defendant school foundation would be invalid as they violate the Private School Act, and there was no evidence proving that the plaintiff had actually disbursed funds to the defendant school foundation.

The appellate court largely upheld the findings and conclusions of the court of first instance. However, by way of supplemental reasoning, the appellate court held that, in light of the examination results obtained at the first instance, it was difficult to accept as-is the factual findings made in related cases, and that the contents of documents concerning the alleged assignment of claims were likewise difficult to credit. Accordingly, the appellate court found that such evidence was insufficient to establish the formation of a loan-for-consumption agreement.

In addition, with respect to the plaintiff’s alternative claims newly raised on appeal for damages based on unauthorized agency or tort, the appellate court held that even assuming the existence of the alleged loan-for-consumption agreement, such agreement would be void ab initio as it violated the Private School Act, and therefore liability for performance could not be imposed on an unauthorized agent. Furthermore, absent evidence proving that the plaintiff had actually disbursed funds, no damage to the plaintiff could be recognized.

4. Our Role and Arguments
We conducted a meticulous review of the legal principles governing the authenticity of documents and vigorously challenged the evidentiary value of the six dispositive documents submitted by the plaintiff. In particular, with respect to certain dispositive documents, we successfully persuaded the court to order handwriting examinations notwithstanding the existence of forensic examination results previously produced by investigative authorities in related criminal proceedings. In addition, we analyzed not only the present case but also the reasoning of judgments rendered in multiple related cases between the plaintiff and the defendants, and actively cited findings favorable to the defendants.

5. Significance of the Judgment
This judgment is consistent with established Supreme Court precedent (Supreme Court of Korea Decision 2002Da34666, dated September 6, 2002), which holds that, in light of the strong probative value generally attributed to dispositive documents, courts must exercise caution in recognizing their authenticity. Moreover, the judgment underscores that even where a contract is concluded by an unauthorized agent, such fact alone does not automatically give rise to the unauthorized agent’s liability under Article 135(1) of the Civil Act.