The non-existence of the part inconsistent with the facts of recognition and the non-examination of the same evidence;

In the same evidence, the evidential materials that conflict with the facts of the judgment among the same evidence shall not be rejected, and the fact of purchase shall not be exempted from the examination due process or the lack of reasons.

Park Jin-Law, Attorney Lee Jae-jin et al.

The representative of the Republic of Korea, the Attorney Han Sung-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 49No637 delivered on February 21, 1952

The original judgment shall be destroyed.

This case is charged to the Seoul High Court.

The Defendant’s ground of appeal is sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff purchased the real estate at KRW 35,40 as of March 7, 427, by adding up the evidence No. 6-1 and the evidence No. 11-7, for which the authenticity of the Plaintiff’s testimony is affirmed by the testimony of at least 10 witness Gap. According to the purport of the evidence No. 8-1 and the evidence No. 11-7, which is affirmed by the evidence No. 6-1 and the evidence No. 7-2, the Plaintiff purchased the real estate at KRW 35,00 for the first time from Non-Party No. 7, and Non-Party No. 9-2 and Non-Party No. 7, which were non-Party No. 1 and Non-Party No. 7, which were non-Party No. 1 and Non-Party No. 8, which were non-Party No. 3, for the reason that the Plaintiff’s testimony was insufficient to acknowledge the ownership of the real estate at the time of the sale of the real estate.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, it is sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff purchased the real estate at KRW 35,400 on March 17, 427, in comparison with the non-party 1 (the non-party 1) evidence Nos. 6-1 to 11 and 7, which is affirmed by testimony and testimony of the number of witnesses and the testimony. According to the above reasoning, it is sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff purchased the real estate at KRW 35,400 from the non-party 1, Japan, the short term of March 17, 427. However, according to the newspaper No. 1 of the non-party 4 (the non-party 2)'s reasoning that the plaintiff purchased the real estate at KRW 35,00 from the non-party 1, the non-party 2, who purchased the real estate at the time of exhibition and the non-party 4 (the non-party 1)'s non-party 1).

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)