[소유권이전등기말소][집18(3)민,353]
Despite the fact that the contents of perjury are unrelated to the fact recognized in the final and conclusive judgment which became the object of this case, it is against our rule of experience on documentary evidence that the witness's testimony was rejected by reason of having received a final and conclusive judgment of perjury.
Despite the fact that the contents of perjury are unrelated to the fact established in the final and conclusive judgment which became the object of the retrial case, it is against our rule of experience on documentary evidence that the witness's testimony was rejected by reason of the final and conclusive judgment of perjury.
Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act
Non-identical tin
Gin English
Busan District Court Decision 69Na10 delivered on July 27, 1970, Busan District Court Decision 69Da10 delivered on July 27, 1970
We reverse the original judgment.
The case shall be remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.
We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant (a new defendant, hereinafter simply referred to as the defendant).
Considering the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance that became final and conclusive in this case (the Busan District Court Decision 68Na304 delivered on November 21, 1968), the facts that the plaintiff (the plaintiff simply hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) sold 1103 square meters to the defendant (the above 1103 square meters omitted) together with other land are without dispute between the parties, and the facts that the witness sold the above 1103 square meters of the 1103 square meters of the above 103 square meters of the 1103 square meters of the 104 square meters of this case's testimony were not known, and the facts that the witness's testimony was rejected on the 10th day of this case's first instance court's testimony that the defendant's above 6th day of this case's above 3th day of this case's testimony was not in violation of the purport of the 14th day of this judgment's rejection of the witness's right to remove the above 10th day of this case's testimony.
Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Nabri-dong and Dobri-Jaking Hanwon