Appropriateness of rejection of a disposal document without explanation of the reason

The existence and content of a disposition document, the content of which is a juristic act, should be recognized so long as its establishment is recognized as genuine, and in denying it, it is necessary to clearly explain the reasons therefor, and the rejection of evidence value is in violation of the rule of experience and logic, because it is not possible to believe the content of a disposition document, the authenticity of which is recognized as genuine without presenting such acceptable reasons.

Article 328 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Da1333 Decided December 29, 1964, Supreme Court Decision 64Da1698 Decided April 20, 1965

Plaintiff

Defendant 2, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Gwangju High Court Decision 82Na434 delivered on April 21, 1983

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The existence and content of a juristic act must be recognized as genuine, so long as the establishment of a juristic act is recognized as its contents, and in denying it, it is necessary to clearly explain the reasons therefor, and the rejection of evidence value on the ground that it is impossible to believe the content of a disposal document which is deemed as genuine without any presentation of acceptable reasons is in violation of empirical and logical rules (see Supreme Court Decision 64Da1333 delivered on December 29, 1964; 64Da1698 delivered on April 20, 196). If the court below established a evidence No. 1 of this case as 2 of this case's establishment of a new collateral security agreement No. 1 of this case's 1 of this case's establishment of a new collateral security agreement No. 97 of this case's establishment of a new collateral security agreement No. 3 of this case's establishment of a new collateral security agreement No. 1 of this case's establishment of a new collateral security agreement No. 97 of this case's establishment of a new collateral security agreement by the plaintiff is 1 of this case's new collateral security interest and 1 of this case's.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)