Written expert evidence prepared by a corporation and its admissibility

A statement of appraisal sent by a court by a legal entity through the court's entrustment of appraisal is that there is no knowledge or experience necessary for the appraisal by the legal entity or that it serves as a material for

Article 310 of the Civil Procedure Act

A

B

Seoul District Court and Seoul High Court of the second instance

The final appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant and the Counterclaim Plaintiff.

The ground of appeal No. 1 is that the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration between Defendant B and Defendant C of the first instance trial on the real estate was made by a forged document, and that is, the registration of transfer of ownership between Defendant C and Defendant C of the first instance trial did not have been made bilaterally. In other words, the Plaintiff is the Defendant C of the first instance trial, and the Plaintiff cannot directly file a claim for cancellation against the Defendant B without being subject to the subrogation right under Article 423 of the Civil Act, although the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation cannot be made by itself without being subject to the subrogation right under Article 423 of the Civil Act.

However, the court below recognized that the plaintiff purchased the real estate from the non-party C (the defendant in the court of first instance) and judged that the sales contract between the non-party and the defendant on the real estate in this case is null and void against public order and good morals, and therefore, the defendant is not a person who has a legitimate interest in claiming the defects in the registration concerning the acquisition of the real estate in this case, and thus, the defendant is entitled to seek the cancellation of the registration of the name of the defendant on the basis of the ownership without being subrogated to the non-party without being registered, and even without being subrogated to the non-party, the original decision from

The second point is, even if it is not, it is necessary co-litigation that the legal relations between the defendant C and the defendant B in the first instance judgment should be confirmed together.

Therefore, even if the defendant at the time of the judgment of the court of first instance or the defendant C did not institute a public prosecution against the judgment, the effect of the public prosecution instituted by the defendant B naturally goes to the Dong and the defendant is in the position of public prosecution in the same extradition trial, so the court below, despite the fact that the court below should ex officio deliberate and decide on the legal relationship with the Dong, is erroneous in violation of the law that the court below excluded the deliberation and judgment in excess of the points.

However, according to the records, it is clear that the principal lawsuit is to seek cancellation registration of the ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant against the defendant, and it is to seek the registration of ownership transfer from the sale between the defendant and the non-party C with respect to the land of this case. Therefore, in the institution of the lawsuit, it is not necessary to make the defendant and the non-party as the co-defendant, and therefore, the purpose of the lawsuit cannot be reached unless the judgment is rendered with respect to the same purport as to the co-litigants. Therefore, the principal lawsuit does not fall under the case where the legal relationship, which is the object of the lawsuit, should be confirmed jointly with the co-litigants. Therefore, it is groundless that the court below's decision was just in progress

The judgment of the court of first instance, cited by the court below, held that the first instance court's decision that the first instance court ordered the non-party 2 to purchase and purchase the real estate from the defendant C on the short-term 10,000 won on October 10, 4286, and then the non-party 3 to purchase and sell the real estate from the defendant C on the expiration of the registration of ownership transfer at the expiration of 30,000,000 won after the appraisal by the appraiser D comprehensively reflects the whole purport, although the first instance court's argument was about 1,218,000 won at the time of this case's appraisal, the counter-party C was the original owner of the real estate or the defendant C did not have experience in the sale of the real estate, and it can be confirmed that the non-party 3 was not a person entrusted with the examination by the court of first instance, but the non-party 3 was not a person entrusted with the examination by the court of first instance.

However, according to the records, the court of first instance does not have the fact that the court did not designate the theory D as an appraiser and ordered to take an oath, but it is clear that the bank entrusted the appraisal of the real estate price to the Korea Savings Bank, a stock company, with the appraisal document prepared by D in the name of the chief of the investigation department, so it can be viewed as the material for fact-finding, regardless of whether D has knowledge and experience necessary for the appraisal or not.

It can be recognized that the price of the real estate at the time of the first instance court's sale and purchase contract with Defendant C is 121,800,000,000 won, regardless of the fact that the first instance court's appraisal and sale of the real estate was 40,000 won or less (or 4,000,000,000,000 won for the first instance court's first instance court's ruling) because it was hard to find out that the first instance court's appraisal and sale of the real estate was 5,00 won or less, and it was hard to find that the first instance court's appraisal and sale of the real estate at the time of the second instance court's first instance court's 10,000 won, and it was hard to find that the first instance court's appraisal and sale of the real estate at the time of the second instance court's first instance court's 20,000 won, and it was hard to find that the second instance court's appraisal and sale contract was concluded with Defendant B.

However, the fact that the sale price of the real estate in this case between Nonparty C and the Defendant was KRW 30,00,000 shall not be recognized that the market price of the real estate in this case at the time was remarkably imbalanced as KRW 2,18,000 as a result of the parties' arguments in full view of the result of the parties' arguments, which is the facts established by the court below, and that the sale of the real estate in this case was made by taking advantage of the other party's experience or imminent difficulties, such as the time when the purchase and sale of the real estate in this case was original, and thus, the judgment that the sale in this case was made invalid

Therefore, the appeal of this case is deemed to be dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition by Articles 401, 89, and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Kim Dong-dong (Presiding Justice) Acting Justice Kim Jae-ho on the present allocation of Kim Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)