백지문서와 민사소송법 제358조 추정

Abstract

The subject of this study is that when an allegation is made regarding a document submitted as documentary evidence in a civil lawsuit that 'the holder of the title signed the document with blank space, and the other party fill in the blank without authority', which party must prove what content to overturn the presumption under Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. The Supreme Court rulings show three positions that conflict with each other. The first view is that the presumption of Article 358 is broken if sufficient counter-evidence is submitted to raise suspicion that a sign was placed on a document with blank space. The second opinion is that if the other party to the document submitter proves that it was a document with blank space at the time of signing, the presumption of Article 358 is broken, and the burden of proof for ‘filling in the blank with authority’ shifts to the submitter of the documentary evidence. The third opinion is that in order to break the presumption of Article 358, the other party of the document submitter must prove both the fact of signing on the document with blank space and the fact of filling in the blank without authority of the incomplete document. I agree with the second opinion. This is because it is against the purpose of Article 358 for the submitter of documentary evidence to lose the evidential value of ‘the fact that the holder of the title himself signed on the document’ simply because there is suspicion that he may have signed the document with blank space.