Limit of the right of interpretation on the contents of the certificate

The interpretation of documentary evidence is an entry in the discretionary authority of a fact-finding court unless it violates logical rules or empirical rules.

Article 185 of the Civil Procedure Act

Kim Gi-name

The legal representative of the Republic of Korea shall be the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Korea, and shall be the legal representative of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Korea, and shall be the legal representative.

Seoul High Court Decision 54 civil defense18 delivered on September 30, 1954

The main body is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The ground of appeal by the defendant representative is against the rules of evidence and therefore there is a mistake in the fact-finding. In other words, although the plaintiff recognized the sale and purchase of the real estate as of May 14, 4276 from the date of receipt of the evidence No. 4, which was the date of receipt of the evidence No. 5, in the short term of February 24, 4276, the document No. 5 was paid by Japan as of February 24, 4276 and the document No. 4,5,6 was also considered to be a small commercial, Japanese, although the document No. 6 was omitted by the date of receipt, the court below's approval of the sale and purchase of the real estate of this case obtained on May 14, 4276 was inconsistent with the judgment of the court below and the evidence No. 4,5.6, and thus, it is against the rules of evidence.

However, if the records of this case are prepared, the court below cannot find that the contents of No. 8-1 to No. 4, No. 9,10-1, and No. 1, 2, which are not disputed with the witness Kim Young-ok's testimony and testimony of the court of first instance, cited the plaintiff's complaint in violation of the No. 8-1, No. 9, and No. 10-2, which are all the purport of the plaintiff's argument. Although the No. 4-1 of No. 6 were included in the contract before this case, it was not accepted by the court below, but it was omitted from the date of receipt of No. 6-1, No. 9, which is the second half-year No. 19, No. 5, and No. 56-1, which are non-party 4, which are non-party 1's name, the court below's decision that this is not based on the purport of the No. 9, which is non-party 1's ownership transfer registration of land.

Justices Kim Jong-il (Presiding Justice)