The case holding that the rule of experience is a violation of the rules of evidence

If it is acknowledged that the Seoul Special Metropolitan City had reported the completion of the internal facilities pursuant to the contract clause, which requires the completion inspection of the building after the person who purchased the building in accordance with the contract for the sale of the building completed the internal facilities and the sub-story development facilities, and then the Seoul Special Metropolitan City has approved the modification of the name of the sale contract, it cannot be deemed that the purport was not the same as the premise that the internal facilities of the building in this case have been completed. Therefore, the court below's rejection of the request for the transfer of ownership against the Seoul Special Metropolitan City is against the rules of experience

Article 393 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Attorney Lee Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 76Na1164 delivered on September 7, 1977

The original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to Seoul Civil Procedure District Court Panel Division.

Judgment on the Plaintiff’s Grounds of Appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below determined that the plaintiff had a monetary claim established by judicial compromise against the non-party 1, while the non-party 1 entered into a contract for the sale of the ground property of the apartment building of this case between the defendant and the non-party 5 on July 5, 1975, and that there was a contract clause that the non-party 1 had a contract clause which is subject to the completion inspection after the non-party 1 completed the internal facilities and the facilities of the building of this case and completed the completion inspection of the construction of the defendant, and rejected the plaintiff's claim for the transfer of the ownership in order to preserve the monetary claim against the non-party 1 on the ground that

However, the court below rejected Gap evidence 2-1, 2 (Fact-finding and reply), Gap evidence 6-1, 2 (Report of completion and delivery certificate), and Gap evidence 7-1 through 4 (written application for approval for change of name, etc.) based on the records, and non-party 1 paid the purchase price of the building in this case in full, and paid the property tax on the building while residing therein, and the non-party 8 was prohibited from resale or transfer of the building in this case without the consent of the defendant under Article 8 of this case. The defendant accepted the non-party 2's application for change of the name of the seller of this contract as of March 11, 1974 by the transfer of the building in this case to non-party 2, and the non-party 1 was able to look at the fact that the non-party 1 reported the completion of the apartment building in this case to the defendant on March 9, 1971, and the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party 1 had not completed the construction inspection of this case.

Therefore, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Civil Procedure District Court Panel Division. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)