[가옥명도][집1(8)민,031]
The adequacy of terms on the determination of evidence
Since it is not possible to view the testimony to the purport that the fact of recognition cannot be reversed with respect to the testimony that is contrary to the facts of recognition, it cannot be viewed to the purport that the testimony was rejected without being bound to receive it, it cannot be said that the judgment of evidence was neglected.
[Defendant-Appellee] Attorney Choi Jong-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee
Kim Young-ran et al.
Seoul District Court of the first instance, Seoul High Court of the second instance, 54 civilian 169 decided July 13, 1954
The main body is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant under the name of the defendant.
The judgment of the court below is reversed on the ground that the non-party 1 was the non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-
However, it cannot be found that the court below found that the testimony of the witness Lee Jong-young, Kim Yong-ju, Park Il-young, and Choi Yong-young was in violation of the rule of experience through full examination of the evidence at the time of the original judgment, and that there was no evidence to reverse the above fact-finding with respect to each testimony of the witness Lee Jong-young, Kim Yong-ju, Park Jong-young, and the best-form, and that the testimony of the court below cannot be viewed to have rejected the above fact-finding without reliance, and there is no argument that the testimony No. 1 does not conflict with the recognition of the above fact-finding as a residential certificate, and that there is a omission of judgment or lack of reasoning in the original judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed by Article 401 of the Civil Procedure Act and the costs of the lawsuit are to be borne as per Disposition by applying Article 95 of the same
Justices Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice) (Presiding Justice)