Proceedings concerning the reorganization of a case whose record has been destroyed due to an incident;

(a) A duplicate of the appeal petition under Article 2 of the Act on the Provisional Measures for Public Criminal Cases due to a court disaster is not limited to the so-called copy under the Civil Procedure Act, but also includes a copy or copy of the appeal petition, if it is realized at the time.

(b) If the record is to be invoked in the first instance trial of the case where the record has been destroyed, it shall be considered to have waived the record unless the request or submission again seeks restitution of the destroyed evidence.

Article 2 of the Act on Temporary Measures for Public Criminal Cases due to Court Disasters

The peripheral condition

National Legal Representative and Minister of Agriculture and Forestry;

Daegu District Court and Daegu High Court of the second instance;

The final appeal is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 1 is that the court's ruling on the legitimacy of the public prosecution and the method of vindication pursuant to the Act on Temporary Measures against Disasters in the Court shall be examined and processed in the court as to whether there is a book by the judge's ex officio investigation. According to the records, the defendant's ruling against the court of Daegu 4283 on the ground that the court of first instance submitted the methods of vindication stipulated in Article 2 of the Measures Act to the court below for the first time before the recording room, but it is obvious that the defendant's ruling that the defendant will not have been bound to submit a copy of the indictment within 8 years without submitting a copy of the indictment to the court of first instance for the second time without submitting a copy of the indictment to the court of second time. In other words, the court below's ruling that the defendant will not have been bound to submit a copy of the indictment to the court of second time for the second time without submitting a copy of the indictment to the court of second time for the first time and second time for the second time.

According to the oral argument protocol of the court below on July 19, 4285, the second point is that the party to the case stated "the result of the oral argument of the court of first instance" at the court below. However, as described in the preceding paragraph, it is not likely that the case is obviously a result of the oral argument of the court of first instance, because it is obvious that the records were destroyed by fire in the court of first instance. Therefore, the original judgment based on the party's statement at the court of first instance at the court of first instance should naturally be destroyed if it is not followed by oral argument, and even if it is impossible, it is difficult to say that the method of evidence of the party's statement at the court of first instance is unclear, the court below should naturally exercise its right to explanation and prove the purport of the argument at the court of first instance. Accordingly, the court below's order to make the party's oral argument at the court of first instance or submission of evidence methods to the same extent as that of the party's actual assertion at the court of first instance or rejection of the witness's oral argument at the court of first instance is invalid.

In addition, according to the oral argument protocol at the court of first instance, although the parties involved stated "the statement as factual time in the original judgment" as stated above, the judgment at the court of first instance in this case is not the original copy of the judgment with the certification of the court of first instance, but also it stated that the method of proving the continuation of the case by the vehicle is unlawful because the original copy of the judgment at the court of first instance is not the original copy with the certification of the court of first instance, and it is not the original copy of the court of first instance. In addition, as the original copy at the time of the judgment at the court of first instance is proved to be consistent with the original copy of the judgment at the court of first instance, and as long as the original judgment at the court of first instance does not exist as it refers to the original judgment at the time of the actual original judgment at the time of the original judgment, it is ultimately processed, and as such, the plaintiff's assertion stated in that the original judgment at the court of first instance is also an unlawful judgment that confirmed the facts without the oral argument at this point.

If the copy of the judgment in the name of the first instance court is consistent with the original judgment, the plaintiff submitted Gap evidence No. 1 at the first instance court, and applied for an examination of Kim Tae-hee and the outer salary as a witness, and the first instance court rendered a favorable judgment by recognizing that the plaintiff's purchase of the land can be recognized by the first instance court's official evidence No. 1 at the first instance court. For this reason, if the court below stated the statement of the plaintiff's oral argument at the first instance court, and implemented the same method as the first instance court's evidence, it could be recognized as being identical to the first instance court's first instance court. Despite this, the original judgment did not appear on the second instance court's own, and it was unlawful for the plaintiff to dismiss the plaintiff's claim on the ground that there was no evidence to acknowledge the purchase of the plaintiff's own land at the time of the first instance court's oral argument, which was the first instance court's own land No. 1 at the time of the second instance court's rejection of the plaintiff's claim by the second instance court's official evidence No.

The court below held that in a case where the records of the court of first instance have been destroyed or lost as the result of oral argument by the party at the court of public prosecution while the litigation at the court of public prosecution continues its validity in the court of public prosecution, the result of the examination of evidence at the court of public prosecution at the court of public prosecution is identical to the theory of lawsuit, unless the party waives or withdraws it effectively by the party's oral argument at the court of public prosecution, but there is no objection to confirm the result of examination of evidence at the court of public prosecution at the court of public prosecution in the case where the records of the court of first instance have been destroyed or lost as in this case, the evidence submitted at the court of public prosecution again was submitted and the witness at the court of first instance should again seek restoration of the destroyed or lost evidence after hearing again. According to the oral arguments at the court below, the court below's decision that the plaintiff failed to submit the examination at the court of first instance at the court of public prosecution at the court of public prosecution at the court of public prosecution at the court of public prosecution at the court of public prosecution at the court of public prosecution, and it cannot be viewed that the court of first instance's appeal and the court below's first instance.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)