Cases of rejection of documentary evidence certifying the fact that real estate was sold or sold, which do not determine whether it conflicts with the ruling;

It is a violation of the rules of evidence that does not judge any documentary evidence that conflict with the ruling in rejecting a letter of sale of real estate.

Article 393 of the Civil Procedure Act

Escopic and retail trade associations

Non-purification et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 59No637 delivered on November 10, 1961, Seoul High Court Decision 2005Da1448 delivered on November 10, 200

The part on the transfer of the defendant's purification and the transfer of the defendant shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The appeal by the defendant Park Jong-chul is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant Park Jong-young.

The court below held that the defendants' assertion that the retail commercial association of the non-party light fiber textile products purchased the real estate since May 18, 1945 was the plaintiff's association, and that the court below rejected the assertion based on the evidence judgment as stated in its holding.

However, according to the evidence evidence of No. 27 evidence No. 15-3 Eul No. 15-3 of the above evidence No. 17-15-2, the plaintiff association's dissolution under the order of the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do to establish new light-made fiber retail associations within the Gyeongsung City as of March 3, 1945, and with the approval of the Governor of the Republic of Korea, it is clear that the plaintiff association was established with all members of the 15-14-14-6-2-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-7-7-7-14-6-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-14-7-7-7-7-7

Therefore, with respect to the grounds of appeal on the transfer of the Defendant’s purification and the transfer of the Defendant, the determination on other arguments is omitted, and there is no submission of the grounds of appeal as to the Defendant’s gambling in accordance with Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act within the statutory period. Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 39

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-Ma-man (Presiding Judge) Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man