Cases where there is an error in violation of the rules of evidence since the judgment of evidence on the documentary evidence, which is a disposal document, is wrong.

When the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the authenticity of the document shall be substantially admissible unless there is any special reason as to the expression and content of the document.

Article 393 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Jeju District Court Decision 65Na8 delivered on September 7, 1965

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case shall be transferred to the Panel Division of the Gwangju District Court.

The grounds for the leader of the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the original judgment pursuant to Article 390 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is recognized that the Defendant alone purchased the real estate in this case by taking comprehensive account of the testimony of the Non-party witness, the non-party witness, and the non-party 1 to 8, and the witness testimony of the non-party 1 to 8, which are contrary thereto, are difficult to believe in light of the above evidence, and thus, rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion.

However, in the case of documentary evidence, if the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, it shall be admissible as evidence unless there is a special reason as to the expression of intent indicated in the document and its contents (see Supreme Court Decision 4290Da703 delivered on October 30, 1958). Thus, Gap evidence No. 1 without dispute as to the formation of the document shall be deemed as disposal document. According to the contents of the plaintiff's claim, 690 m20 prior to Jeju, including this real estate, can be acknowledged that the original defendant and the non-party 3 jointly purchased the document and dispose of it in installments and liquidates the purchase price and other expenses and jointly distribute the remainder with the joint distribution key, and the court below's judgment did not have any special reason to reject it, and it is hard to find that there is no special reason as to the above evidence No. 1, which was adopted by the judgment of the court of first instance, that the non-party 1 and the non-party 1's remaining land purchase price did not have any influence on the plaintiff's remaining land purchase price and the non-party 1's remaining land.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu