It is an example that there is an error of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence by misunderstanding the value judgment of evidence.

It is an example that there is an error of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence by misunderstanding the value judgment of evidence.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

National Institute of Education for School Foundation

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 65Na1074 decided May 9, 1968, Seoul High Court Decision 65Na1074 decided May 9, 1968

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 of the Plaintiff’s Attorney are examined.

The court below acknowledged the fact that the fixed period of sight has expired without any objection from the plaintiff and other interested parties, and the statement that the defendant et al.'s legal representative made a public notice of sight for ten days from December 22, 1961 on the land of this case in the court below is against the truth and due to mistake, since the permission of the defendant was cultivated as farmland at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and thus, the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office made a public notice of sight to the effect that the land of this case is farmland distributed to the defendant for ten days from April 3, 1950 to April 12 of the same year in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act.

However, according to the records, Gap evidence 3-1, 2-1, 4-1, 2-5-1, 2-6, 20, 21, 23-24, and 25-1, 22-2-1, 2, and 2-3-2 of each of the above evidence No. 3-1, 4-1, 2-2-2 of the above evidence No. 1, and 9-2 of the court below's testimony and the result of document verification in Seongbuk-gu Office, the court below decided that the plaintiff's objection to the above evidence No. 20-1, 2-1, 3-2 of the above evidence No. 1, 3-1, 2-1, 2-1, 3-2 of the above evidence No. 3-1, 2-1, 3-1, 3-2 of the above evidence No. 3-1, which were excluded from the farmland distribution of the plaintiff's farmland for 2-1, 96-2, 16-1,

Despite the fact that the court below recognized that the confession of the defendant, etc. was publicly announced for 10 days from April 3, 1950 to 10 days on the land of this case as in head and recognized that the confession of the defendant, etc. was not based on the documentary evidence, or did not err by the rules of evidence by misunderstanding the value judgment on the evidence, or by misunderstanding the value judgment on the evidence. The arguments are justified.

Therefore, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Supreme Court Judge Madung (Presiding Judge) Dogk Kim-bun and Lee Young-young