The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the grounds of violation of the rules of evidence

The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the grounds of violation of the rules of evidence

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 et al.

Defendant-Appellee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Daegu District Court Decision 86Na548 delivered on December 30, 1987

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the above assertion on the ground that the deceased non-party 2 asserted that the forest of this case was owned by the deceased non-party 1, who was originally owned by the plaintiff, the deceased deceased non-party 1, and the deceased non-party 2 had completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Dong, based on the false letter of guarantee and confirmation under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Forest and Forest Ownership, although he did not sell it to non-party 2, the court below rejected the above assertion on the ground that the evidence of the plaintiff, which corresponds to the above argument, was written in Eul evidence No. 2, and in light of this evidence No. 2, this evidence No. 1, this paper, this title, Kim Young-he, and the testimony

2. However, examining the contents of the Plaintiff’s evidence rejected by the lower court in light of the record, the record reveals that the deceased Nonparty 1 disposed of most of the property while moving to Manju around 1925, but the forest of this case where Cho Jae-soo 1 was installed with Cho Jae-sung, but did not dispose of the forest of this case and delegated the management of the forest of this case where Cho Jae-soo 2, who was living in quality, and the management of the forest of this case was delegated to him, it is difficult to dismiss the credibility of the statement as seen below.

In other words, according to Gap evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 6-2, Eul evidence 6-2, Eul evidence 10-2, Eul evidence 10-1, Eul evidence 14-14, Eul evidence 16-2, and the witness testimony of the court below employed by the court below, the deceased non-party 1 owned 10 lots of paddy land including the forest land of this case, but it was not sold or disposed of the whole land of this case, but it was hard to accept the above statement that the plaintiff 1's first line of deceased non-party 1's first line of birth was no disposal other than the forest of this case, and that the defendant 1's first line of birth was no disposal other than the forest of this case without being disposed of to the other person, and that the defendant 1's second line of birth report was no more than the deceased non-party 1's first line of birth report of the deceased non-party 1, and the defendant 1 and the witness's second line of domicile of this case were no more than 96 years old and 14 years old.

3. Meanwhile, examining the evidence that the court below rejected the credibility of the testimony of the above witness and the testimony of the deceased non-party 1, among them, the testimony of the first instance court witness Kim Jong-ok and the second instance court witness Kim Jong-young to the effect that the deceased non-party 1 was directly present at the time of concluding a sales contract to sell the forest of this case to the deceased non-party 2. The testimony of the above non-party 1, first of all, sold the forest of this case to the non-party 1 on May 1927, because the deceased non-party 1 sold the forest of this case to the non-party 1, the date and time of the sale is not consistent with the statement of the YY, the non-party 1, the witness of this case, and the testimony of the above Yellow-man was not reliable by the punishment in this respect, and the testimony of the above non-party 1, the contents of the plaintiff 17 (No evidence No. 17) that the plaintiff 1 presented to the non-party 2.

Among other evidence on the defendant's side, each testimony of this case's table, this title, Kim Young-he, and second instance witness's leaptation, and leapment is nothing more than the fact that the fact of the sale of this case is known to another person or it is not directly related to the sale of this case.

4. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misunderstanding the judgment on the value of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and it constitutes the ground for reversal under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and it is so decided as per Disposition

Justices Lee Jae-seok (Presiding Justice)