Limits on the exercise of the right to request Elucidation

The court's right to request the proof shall be limited to cases where it is evident that the party concerned is not able to prove due to negligence or misunderstanding in light of the degree of litigation, and in all cases where there is no proof as to the disputed facts, the court shall not demand the proof until it obtains the conviction.

Article 126 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

Chuncheon Shipping Attorney Jin-jin et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seomjin Farmland Improvement Association Attorney Jeong-il et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Gwangju High Court Decision 88Na2433 delivered on February 1, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

With respect to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the Plaintiff’s error in the Defendant’s waterway installation and preservation caused a decrease in yield of the allocation in the orchard owned by the Plaintiff, and the damage caused by the Plaintiff’s death on the part of the Plaintiff, and that the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that there was no evidence to acknowledge that there was a defect in failing to take preventive measures against water leakage in the Defendant’s structure, or that there was a loss caused by the Plaintiff’s design caused the Plaintiff’s damage on the part of the Plaintiff. In so doing, the lower court did not err in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or incomplete hearing. Whether the result of reduction in yield of the Plaintiff’s claim on the part of the Plaintiff’s owner was caused by the Defendant’s water production through a specialized appraisal, etc., and the lower court’s rejection of the witness’s testimony is sufficiently acceptable.

The court's right to request verification is limited to a case where it is evident that the parties are not able to prove due to negligence or misunderstanding in light of the nature of a lawsuit, and it is not required to urge the court to provide proof in all cases where there is no proof as to the disputed facts (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu132, Mar. 10, 1987). According to the records, the plaintiff's attorney shall file an application for appraisal with the court of first instance to establish whether the death and the decrease in harvest of the relevant pine trees of this case are caused by inundationd water from the defendant's water use on the date of the first instance trial. The plaintiff's attorney shall file an application for appraisal with the court of first instance, and there is no reply with the head of the previous university technology research institute, who is able to give such appraisal from the court of first instance, to withdraw the application on the seventh day of the first instance trial, and there is no evidence to submit it on the last day of the trial of the court below. The plaintiff's attorney shall not be required to urge the court to provide further proof.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)