In the case of fact-finding based on comprehensive evidence (negative)

In a case where the fact-finding court conducts fact-finding by integrating the evidence, it is reasonable to deem that the contradictory and unnecessary parts of each evidence are removed, and they are used in the judgment materials, so it is reasonable to see that the evidence value is unfair even if there is no express statement that the court does not adopt any part inconsistent with the facts recognized, among the contents of evidence, unless there are special evidences such as the disposition documents, etc., and therefore, it does not contain any error in the misapprehension of the purport of rejecting any part inconsistent with the facts recognized.

Article 193(2) of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 2 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

[Judgment of the court below]

Succession to the legal representative of the Daegu-gu Busan District Court Maintenance Foundation

Daegu High Court Decision 91Na6765, 91Na6772 decided April 23, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2.

In light of the records, the fact-finding by the court below as to the grounds for disciplinary action, which points out in the lawsuit, is acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence, and on the other hand, as pointed out in the theory that part of the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the court below as to the grounds for disciplinary action of this case are different from those of the grounds for disciplinary action, it shall be deemed that the part of the grounds for disciplinary action of this case was rejected by the defendant, and thus, it shall not

In addition, in a case where a fact-finding court conducts fact-finding by integrating the evidence, it shall remove contradictory parts and unnecessary parts of each evidence and gather only the necessary and common parts among them, and make them public in the judgment materials. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the value of evidence is unfair even if there is no express statement that the court does not adopt it with respect to any part inconsistent with the facts recognized by the court among the contents of evidence, other than the disposition documents (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da3198, Mar. 8, 1983). Therefore, the court below did not specify the purport of rejecting parts inconsistent with the facts found among the evidence in the theory of lawsuit or did not explain the reason for rejection. It is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. We examine the third ground for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the dismissal of the plaintiff, who is one of the most severe disciplinary actions against the plaintiff, is illegal since it goes beyond the scope of discretionary authority, although the plaintiff's above determination of the court below is justified in light of the records, considering the plaintiff's academic background and work experience, his contribution to promotion of friendship, his personal achievements, the contents and circumstances leading up to the cause of the disciplinary action in this case, and the plaintiff already retired from office for one year as a result of the plaintiff's recommendation by the school authorities, etc.

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

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)