The court that has been remanded or transferred and new hearings

A. The court to which the case was remanded or transferred shall not render a judgment contrary to the factual or legal judgment of the court of final appeal on the grounds of reversal, but shall commence and deliberate and decide a new oral argument. Therefore, it is not bound by the evidence judgment or factual or legal judgment made by the court of final appeal prior to or in the case of remand.

B. Therefore, in a case where the court of final appeal finds that the matters other than those on the grounds of reversal are different from those on the grounds of reversal as a result of a review by the court of final appeal, it does not err in the misapprehension of legal principle as to the matters on

Article 407 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Defendant-Appellant] Cho Tae-ri et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant

Republic of Korea legal representative, Minister of Finance and Economy Kim Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

Jeju District Court of the first instance, the Gwangju High Court of the second instance, and the Gwangju High Court of September 2, 19555 54 civil defense163 delivered on September 2, 1955

The final appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff-appellant's wireless ground of appeal is that the fact-finding without adopting all the testimonys on the part of the plaintiff in accordance with the judgment of the court below is in violation of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act.

The ground of appeal No. 1 on the same day of appeal No. 2 of the court below is justified because, in denying the difference in the sale of this real estate by the non-party 1, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion and evidence, the non-party 2's testimony was purchased from the Dong Japan before August 9, 4278, because the plaintiff alleged that the non-party 1 purchased the ownership transfer registration from the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2's testimony of the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2's testimony of the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2's testimony of civil procedure.

However, since evidence cooking and fact-finding belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, they cannot be overlooked unless they violate the logical or empirical rules. In this case, even if the records and the original judgment were determined in the original judgment, it cannot be recognized that there is illegality in the deliberation of evidence and fact-finding of the court below, so

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the second instance court held that the non-party 2 had no record of the fact that the non-party 4 had no record of the fact that the non-party 2 had no record of the fact that the non-party 3 had no record of the fact that the non-party 4 had no record of the fact that the non-party 2 had no record of the fact that the non-party 2 had no record of the fact that the non-party 3 had no record of the fact that the non-party 4 had no record of the fact that the non-party 2 had no record of the fact that the non-party 4 had no record of the fact that the non-party 2 had no record of the fact that the non-party 1 had been sold to the non-party 2 for the purpose of the non-party 4's long-term market price during the 8th anniversary of the fact that the non-party 2 had no record of the fact that the non-party 1 had no record of the fact that it had been sold to the non-party 2.

The court that was remanded to the appellate court or transferred to the appellate court cannot make a decision contrary to the factual and legal judgment on the ground of reversal. However, it is not bound by the evidence judgment or the fact-finding court prior to the remanding of the case, or the fact-finding court's decision on the ground that the new oral argument should be commenced and deliberated, and therefore, if it is deemed sufficient to render a judgment on the grounds other than those on the grounds of reversal by the court of final appeal as a result of the court's deliberation, it cannot be deemed unlawful even if it did not make a decision on the grounds of reversal. In this case, the court's decision on the grounds of reversal cannot be deemed unlawful. In this case, the court's decision on the fact that the price was considerably high in the sales contract between the non-party mine and non-party 1, Japan, and the non-party 1, had been reversed and remanded. The court below's decision on the ground that the court below reversed and remanded the plaintiff's claim after cooking the evidence ex officio before reaching the judgment on the grounds of reversal of the member.

Therefore, the appeal of this case is groundless and it is so decided as per Disposition by Articles 401, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Kim Dong-dong (Presiding Justice) Acting Justice Kim Jae-ho on the present allocation of Kim Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)