[건물철거][공1983.8.1.(709),1083]
There are several different appraisal results on the same facts
If there are several appraisal results in the same facts, it is legitimate that the court recognizes the facts in accordance with one of them, unless it violates the rules of experience and logic.
Articles 305 and 187 of the Civil Procedure Act
Supreme Court Decision 71Da2091 Delivered on November 23, 1971, 81Da13,14 Delivered on June 8, 1982
(the deceased non-party 1) Plaintiff 1 and three others
Defendant 1 and one other
Gwangju District Court Decision 81Na523 delivered on December 30, 1982
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court Panel Division.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
There is no way to conclude that if there are several appraisal results contrary to any of the same facts, if the court recognizes the facts in accordance with any of them, it would be legitimate unless it violates the rules of experience or logic (see Supreme Court Decision 81Da13, 14, June 8, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 71Da2091, Nov. 23, 1971).
The judgment of the court of first instance, which dismissed the plaintiffs' claim on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the result of each testimony of the first instance court witness 1, non-party 2, non-party 3, and non-party 2's expert witness of the first instance court, and non-party 4's expert witness of the first instance court, and non-party 4's expert witness of the first instance court, in light of the testimony of the first instance court and the result of the expert witness of the first instance court and the non-party 4's expert witness of the first instance court, and the result of the expert witness of the first instance court's expert witness of the first instance.
However, according to the records of the court below's rejection of the evidence consistent with the facts alleged by the plaintiffs, since the above evidence is examined as evidence, the site of this case was divided into (No. 1 omitted) 26 square meters from (No. 2. 2. Mapo-si (No. 2. 3 omitted) on August 23, 1963, and it was 49 square meters due to a combination with the above (No. 3 omitted) Mapo-si 23 square meters on June 2, 1981, and each testimony of the above court of first instance and non-party 4 was conducted as a first-class appraiser for the survey of the site of this case, it was about the method and result of the appraisal, and it constitutes a non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's rejection of the above appraisal result of the appraisal of this case's land of this case, which is 1'26 square meters large or 49' square meters on June 2, 1981).
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)