Cases in violation of the rule of experience as to documentary evidence;

Cases where there is an error in violation of the rule of experience on documentary evidence.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff (Reexamination Plaintiff)

Defendant (Re-Defendant)

Busan District Court Decision 67Na548 delivered on May 31, 1968

We reverse the original judgment.

The case shall be remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

In full view of the testimony of Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 2 (1,2) before the review of evidence No. 5, the above house was originally owned by the defendant, but the defendant, around April 1955, when the plaintiff was residing in the non-party 3 of the party branch which caused the plaintiff's death, donated the house to the non-party 4, and the non-party 4, and the non-party 5, who caused the defendant's death, sought the name of the house to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff refused to use the name and sold the house to the plaintiff. Thus, the non-party's purchase of the house to the non-party 4 and the non-party 2 (1,2) from the non-party 5 to the non-party 3 with the right of representation affixed to the non-party 4 and the non-party 5 for the non-party 3 with the right of representation, and it did not constitute a violation of the law of evidence that the court below concluded the non-party 2's testimony for the plaintiff's death (the non-party 2).

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

Supreme Court Judge Balle (Presiding Judge) Do-dong and Hong-dong Circuit