[물품반환][집10(2)민,151]
In order to prove ownership of the building by the original defendant, if the building is not the same by a certified copy of the register submitted by each written evidence, an example of failure to determine this evidence
If the original defendant's written evidence submitted by the original defendant for the purpose of proving ownership of the building is not identical to the building by a certified copy of the register of the court below, the court below erred in the misapprehension of evidence determination that the court below did not make any judgment despite the fact that the above evidence should be judged.
Article 393 of the Civil Procedure Act
Kim Jin-Law (Attorney Lee Jong-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Kim Jong-pyeong et al. (Attorneys Noh Jong-pon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Gwangju High Court Decision 4294No50 delivered on August 10, 1961
We reverse the original judgment.
This case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
The Defendants’ attorney’s grounds of appeal are as follows.
On the first ground for appeal, the first ground for appeal
(1) According to the records, the plaintiff operated a chromatic business under the name of the non-party 1's own chromatic factory from January 195 to the non-party 2's 1's own chromatic 1's own testimony of the plaintiff 3, 4, 6, 11 and 7's witness Lee 1's own gromatic 1's own 9's own gromatic 1's own 9's own gromatic 1's own gromatic 9's own gromatic 1's own gromatic 9's own gromatic 1's own gro-1's own gromatic 9's own gro-1's own gro-1's own gro-1's own gro-1's own gro-1's own gro-6's own gro-1's own gro-2's own gro 9's own gro-1's own g.
(2) According to the plaintiff's certificate Nos. 17, the plaintiff's name is opened in the plaintiff's name and thereafter the plaintiff's name is opened in the plaintiff's name, and each of the above two buildings is clear after July 1958, which was provided as security to the defendants by the non-party Humok as to the object of this case. Thus, the defendants denied the plaintiff's ownership of the object of this case and submitted the above evidence Nos. 17 as evidence, and Eul's certified copy of the certificate No. 18 and the copy of the certificate No. 11 of the certificate No. 11, the above two buildings are somewhat different in terms of their horizontal number, and there are differences in the number of the building No. 17, the above two buildings are separate buildings, but the two buildings are constructed on the same side, and each of the above two buildings is constructed on the same, and there are no errors in the judgment of the court below as to the evidence other than the above building's evidence.
Therefore, the decision of the court below is delivered with the assent of all participating judges in order to make a new trial and judgment, and it is so decided as per Disposition.
Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)