[소유권이전등기][공1981.7.15.(660),13987]
Evidence of a disposal document (a sales contract)
A disposition document (a sales contract) in which the formation is deemed true shall be recognized as having the existence of a juristic act in its contents, unless there is a clear and acceptable reason to deny the contents thereof.
Article 328 of the Civil Procedure Act
[Judgment of the court below]
Busan District Court Decision 200Na1448 delivered on August 1, 200
Daegu High Court Decision 78Na696 delivered on January 11, 1980
The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The costs of litigation incurred by the defendant's appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
1. First, we examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.
According to the court below's decision, the court below acknowledged that there was a sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant on April 1976 which covers the real estate of this case and its business assets as a package sale object, and rejected Gap's certificate 3 (sales contract) without dispute over its establishment as it was prepared in the form of business process. However, the above evidence No. 3 (sales contract) should be acknowledged as the existence of legal act with its contents, unless it is obvious and acceptable to deny its establishment, and it is clear that the above evidence No. 3 was prepared as evidence of the court below's decision that the sale contract was concluded on May 23, 1976 with the plaintiff and the defendant on the ground that the above real estate of this case and its business assets became an object of sale and purchase, and it is clear that the above evidence No. 3 (sales contract) was not prepared as evidence of the court below's decision as to the non-party No. 1 and the defendant No. 2's testimony as to the above real estate of this case.
2. The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.
The judgment of the court below which recognized the defendant's assertion that a sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant on April 1976, which covers the real estate in this case and the business assets in the original sale, was concluded, is erroneous in misconception of the facts in violation of the rules of evidence, as seen earlier.
3. Therefore, without proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by the plaintiff, the plaintiff's appeal is with merit, and therefore, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed and remanded. The defendant's appeal is without merit, and the costs of appeal by the defendant are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)