[대여백미][집15(1)민,269]
In the case of a violation of the rules of evidence by improper means;
The fact that the contents of the testimony did not directly witness to lend the white part, but the fact of the white part can not be recognized as the fact of the loan is illegal because it is the whole denial of the evidence of the hearsay evidence in civil procedure.
Plaintiff
Defendant
Cheongju District Court Decision 66Na99 delivered on December 14, 1966
The original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Cheongju District Court Panel Division.
The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the court below's decision, the court below rejected the witness's testimony on the facts that the plaintiff lent the white paper to the defendant, such as the statement of non-party 1, and the non-party 2, the non-party 3 and the non-party 4's testimony in light of each part of the witness's testimony such as the statement of the non-party 5 and the non-party 6's testimony, and the non-party 5 and the non-party 6's testimony on the above white paper loan is not a direct witness to the defendant, so it is clear that there is no evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's confession loan to the defendant. However, according to the records, it is clear that the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party 1's testimony was the non-party 2, the non-party 3 and the non-party 4's testimony and the non-party 4's testimony was the non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's testimony and the non-party 2's testimony's testimony were non-party 6's testimony.
Therefore, according to the unanimous opinion of all participating judges, it is decided in accordance with Articles 400 and 406 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)