A. Whether it can be deemed as a documentary evidence that has recognized the formation of a document submitted with a forged document (negative)

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below which acknowledged that the real estate sales contract was forged, and that the agreement to register the ownership transfer regarding the disputed land was based on fraud and coercion, there was an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the supplement of the party principal examination or in violation of the rules of evidence.

A. Since a forged document is not to be used as evidence for the content of ideas written in the court below, it cannot be viewed as a documentary evidence that the other party recognized the formation of the document, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a documentary evidence that has no dispute over its establishment.

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below which found that the real estate sales contract was forged, and that the agreement to register the ownership transfer with respect to the disputed land was based on fraud and coercion, and there were errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the supplement of the party principal examination or in violation of the rules

(a) Article 328 of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 187 and 339 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 72Da1103 Delivered on September 26, 1972

Ansan-gu Attorney Park Jong-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant’s Attorney Lee Yong-soo

Daegu District Court Decision 90Na3384 delivered on November 23, 1990

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daegu District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the above real estate was owned by the defendant 1, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who purchased the above real estate sale contract after the non-party 1 and sold the above real estate to the non-party 1, who had no knowledge about the non-party 8's original real estate purchase and sale contract (the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who had no knowledge about the non-party 9's transfer of the above real estate, were the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who had no knowledge about the non-party 9's transfer of the above real estate, were the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who had no knowledge about the non-party 1 and the non-party 1, who had no knowledge about the non-party 8's transfer of the above real estate on the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who had no knowledge about the non-party 1's new real estate sale contract, were sold to the plaintiff 18.

However, according to the above real estate sales contract (No. 2) and the defendant's agreement to directly transfer the ownership of the land of this case to the plaintiff on October 31, 1987, the document Eul out of the evidence acknowledged that the agreement was forged by the plaintiff's fraud and duress, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff was submitted as a documentary evidence since it was submitted by the defendant as a forged document, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's establishment was not disputed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 72Da103, Sept. 26, 1972). No. 5,6,9 were the defendant's testimony of this case to the non-party 2 and the defendant's testimony of this case to the non-party 3's assertion that there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the non-party 1's testimony or coercion as to the non-party 4's use of the above agreement, and the defendant's assertion that the non-party 2's testimony and testimony were not recorded after the plaintiff 2's allegation.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)