The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

1. In light of the facts acknowledged by the court below, (1) the place where the defendant seized 10,000 Sojon Fertilizer in the name of debt against the non-party Pungsan Co., Ltd. (1) the place where the defendant attached 10,000 Sojon Fertilizer in the name of debt against the non-party Pungsan Co., Ltd. ( Address 1 omitted), and (2) 1, 272 square meters in warehouse for ground iron bars, and the building is owned by the plaintiff, and (2) 2,000 parts in the seizure parcels are remaining after the defendant disposes of 6,00 parts of the 6,000 parts again purchased by the plaintiff from the non-party who was awarded a compulsory auction by the creditor of the above non-party company, and (3) 8,000 parts are the goods produced

2. However, since the court of first instance did not object to the compulsory execution against the above 2,00 parcels of 2,00 parcels of 2,00 parcels, it is obvious in the records that the defendant's fact-finding of the court of first instance cannot be raised. Thus, the arguments about this point are without merit.

3. The court below adopted Gap evidence of fact-finding as mentioned in the above 1, which adopted Gap evidence 1 as evidence of fact-finding. The above evidence is sufficient to recognize the defendant only as a private document with the fixed date, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the formation of the document, and therefore, the court below stated that the whole document can be recognized as a whole since the court below did not have any evidence to prove the existence of the document at the time of the fixed date and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the establishment of the document. The fixed date of the deed signed by a private person is only a fact-finding which exists at the time of the fixed date, and it does not have any effect of proving the fact that the document was duly established. The court below's decision did not affect the conclusion of the judgment and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles of evidence or fact-finding as well as the court below's decision that there is no evidence or fact-finding without any error in the law of evidence No. 14 of the court below.

4. On the same day as the plaintiff's preparatory brief was stated in the fifth pleading of November 14, 1972, it is clear that the remaining 10,000s of fertilizers of this case were purchased by the plaintiff and 8,000s of fertilizers of this case were manufactured by the plaintiff and withdrawn the previous arguments as seen in the above 1, it is obvious that the second point of the lawsuit is that the plaintiff's 10,000s of fertilizers of this case were stated in the above 10,000s of fertilizers of this case, and it is obvious that the 8,000s of fertilizers were produced by the plaintiff and the previous arguments were withdrawn, without examining these plaintiff's arguments,

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-soo (Presiding Justice)