사실확인서 작성 (lyn-fact-confirmation)

Drafts a Korean statement of facts (사실확인서 / 진술서) as a court-ready .docx across civil, criminal, family, administrative, and labor matters — for third-party witnesses and parties alike.

Source 이영남 변호사 (TheChain Lawyer) ↗

#legal#witness-statement#docx#korean-law#thechain-lawyer
Install

Installation

curl -O https://thechain.lawyer/skills/lyn-fact-confirmation.skill
Requirements
  • Claude (Skills 지원 환경) — 설정 → Capabilities → Skills 에 .skill 파일 업로드
  • docx 생성 기능
  • 제출 전 변호사 검토 권장 — 이 스킬은 법률 자문을 제공하지 않습니다
Capabilities

What it does

  • 01소송 유형 무제한 — 민사(손해배상·대여금·부동산·계약분쟁), 형사, 가사(이혼·양육권·상속), 행정, 노동(해고·임금)
  • 02작성 주체 분기 — 사건을 목격한 제3자 증인 / 원고·피고·피해자 등 당사자 본인
  • 03대화에서 이미 나온 정보는 다시 묻지 않고, 빠진 항목만 한 메시지에 묶어 질문
  • 04사건번호·법원명·당사자 관계·확인 대상 사실을 시간순으로 구조화
  • 05유사 문서(진술서·확인서·탄원서·증인신문조서)와의 차이 및 서증으로서의 증거가치 한계를 함께 안내
  • 06모르는 항목은 ○○○로 두고 진행 — 완전한 정보를 기다리며 멈추지 않음
About

About

lyn-fact-confirmation produces a 사실확인서 — the written statement in which someone who witnessed or knows a fact confirms it for use as documentary evidence in a Korean proceeding. It is published by attorney 이영남 at thechain.lawyer and linked from this catalog. The skill covers every proceeding type without a separate template per matter: civil (damages, loans, real property, contract disputes), criminal (assault, fraud, defamation), family (divorce, custody, inheritance), administrative (permits, discipline), and labor (dismissal, wages, working conditions). It also handles both authorship modes — a third-party witness who saw the events, and a party to the case confirming facts directly — since the framing and the credibility posture differ between them. Collection is conversational but deliberately non-repetitive: anything already stated earlier is reused rather than re-asked, and the remaining gaps are asked once, bundled into a single message. Unknown fields are left as placeholders and the draft proceeds, on the principle that a complete-enough document to edit beats a stalled interview. The skill also teaches the distinction that most people get wrong — how a 사실확인서 differs from a 진술서, a general 확인서, a 탄원서 pleading for leniency, and a court-recorded examination of a sworn witness — and states plainly that a statement written outside the courtroom carries less evidentiary weight than sworn testimony, though consistent statements from several authors, or one that lays out concretely experienced facts in chronological order, are given real weight in practice. It assists a legal workflow and does not provide legal advice.