Article 320 of the Civil Procedure Act

The purport of the provision of Article 320 of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to the administrative litigation procedure pursuant to Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act, is that if a party does not comply with the order to submit a document, the court should admit that the allegations concerning the other party’s nature, content, and authenticity of the document are true, and that the other party’s assertion that the document intends to prove is not necessarily proven.

Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 320 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Da515 Decided September 22, 1964, 76Da94 Decided October 26, 1976

Kudong Mutual Savings and Finance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Minister of Finance and Economy

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu1254 delivered on November 24, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The purport of Article 320 of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to the administrative litigation procedure pursuant to Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act, is that if the party does not comply with the order to submit a document, the court shall not necessarily recognize that the other party's assertion about the document's nature, content, and authenticity of the formation should be true, and that the other party's assertion that the other party's assertion should be proved by the document is proved by the document. Furthermore, according to the records, the plaintiff applied for the order to submit a document in order to prove that the disposition of business suspension or revocation is an administrative disposition with significant and obvious defects such as the theory of lawsuit, and it is obvious that the plaintiff himself applied for the order to submit the document in order to present the document, and therefore, the court below did not recognize the above argument of the plaintiff, and even after examining the record, it cannot be said that the court below rejected the testimony of the non-party witness for the reasons as stated in its reasoning, and there are no errors in the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit.

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

Justices Lee Jin-Post (Presiding Justice)