Comprehensive adoption of evidence and violation of the rules of evidence

Comprehensively, it is against the rules of evidence that it is against the rules of evidence to recognize facts without selecting genuine evidence.

Articles 185 and 394 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

The legal representative of the Republic of Korea, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, and the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, the legal representative of the Kim Young-ray, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry.

Busan District Court Decision 200Na140 delivered on September 10, 1954

We reverse the original judgment.

This case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant representative are the key point of whether the claim is denied in the case of this case. The plaintiff, which is the fact of land purchase between the non-party 2's Trisung Partnership representative and the non-party 2's Tridaemunmundae, Japan, is the non-party 4271. On March 22, 4272, he purchased the land of this case from the above non-party 3, and the plaintiff presented the certificate of sale of the non-party 3333's Tridaedaedaesung, which caused the plaintiff to establish the difference as Gap evidence 2, but it cannot be said that the court below made a sale contract for the non-party 2, the non-party 2's purchase of the plaintiff 1's free will and it cannot be said that the non-party 4,000's free will were the non-party 2's purchase of the plaintiff 1's free will and the non-party 3,000's free will be the non-party 47,00's free will.

The grounds of appeal by the Administrator of the Government Administration of the Dong representative had a hearing trouble and there is a violation of the rules of evidence. In other words, the court below recognized the authenticity of the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and accepted the plaintiff's petition after taking the witness's testimony. However, the witness purchased the property in this case on a short-term period of December 4, 4271 from the so-called "members (Liquidators)" and the defendant purchased the property in this case on a short-term of 4271. In addition, the sales contract testified that the plaintiff was lost since it did not have any special interest in the relation of the sale of the land to the plaintiff, and the witness testified that he was purchased from Japan on a short-term date of September 1, 4272. Therefore, if the plaintiff purchased the property from the witness's question as the witness's question as of September 1, 4272, it is clear that the plaintiff's testimony was not obtained in the exhibition sales contract. Therefore, the court below's testimony is clear that the plaintiff's letter and testimony is false.

According to the original judgment of the court below, the plaintiff purchased the land from the non-party 1's 7,40 won in its short term on March 22, 4272 and paid the same amount, and according to the evidence No. 1 cited by the court of first instance, although the plaintiff stated that he was the agent of the non-party 1 in his original judgment, the plaintiff's 6,500 won in his son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's 1's son's son's son's son's son's son's son.

Justices Kim Jong-il (Presiding Justice)