In accordance with the whole purport of the pleading, whether the establishment of documentary evidence is recognized (affirmative)

Even in cases where the party concerned did not prove the establishment of documentary evidence as its site, the court may recognize its establishment by free evaluation, taking into account the whole purport of the pleading, without any other evidence.

Articles 328 and 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Da119 Delivered on July 23, 1974

Ameras Kimeras Ltd., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant's running water

Attorney Choi Han-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 79Na172 delivered on June 26, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to Section 1:

The issue of eligibility for parties under the Civil Procedure Act is related to the requirements for litigation, which belongs to the matter of the court's ex officio investigation, and the matter of ex officio investigation cannot be the subject of confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 70Da2639, Mar. 23, 1971; 7Nu123, Sept. 13, 197). The court below acknowledged that the plaintiff corporation is a domestic corporation established under Korean law with its head office in Korea, and that the plaintiff is a domestic corporation established under Korean law. The court below's rejection of the defendant's defense against the plaintiff's main defense without the plaintiff's standing for parties. There are errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the standing for parties, the revocation of confession, or the lack of dispute between the parties,

With respect to Section 2:

Based on its evidence, the court below acknowledged the following facts: in the traffic accident where the automobile of the non-party 1 driven by the non-party 1 and the towed automobile of the defendant employed by the non-party 1 who was driven by the non-party 1, the plaintiff agreed to pay the amount of damages to the non-party 1's bereaved family members who died of the accident under the status of the insurer under the automobile insurance contract concluded between the non-party 1 and the non-party 1, and the non-party 1's employee. The defendant agreed to approve each of the above damages to be paid by the plaintiff and agreed to pay the non-party 1's damages to the above non-party 1, and the non-party 1's negligence is recognized as a Korean court's judgment on the non-party 1, and the judgment became final and conclusive, the court below determined that the non-party 1 was not liable to pay the non-party 1's damages to the non-party 1 as evidence for the non-party 4's establishment of the above facts based on the evidence.

In addition, pursuant to Article 682 (2) of the plaintiff's submission of a preparatory document dated October 18, 1979 (statement at the date of pleading as of the same day), the plaintiff argued that in addition to the acquisition of the right to indemnity against the defendant under the above No. 682 of the Commercial Act, the defendant would pay half of the damages of this case by the statement of No. 14-1, No. 14-2 of the Commercial Act, and the defendant would pay compensation for damages of this case under his/her responsibility. Thus, according to the records, the plaintiff argued that the cause of the claim is due to the right to indemnity by subrogation of insurance under the Commercial Act in the first instance, and the plaintiff asserted that the cause of the claim is due to the right to indemnity under the insurance subrogation under the Commercial Act in the appellate trial, and it is evident that the above claim is not a new cause for damages or a new cause for damages. Thus, the court below's determination that there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the ground of the above claim, and there is no error in the court below's determination.

We cannot accept all the arguments because they go against the judgment of evidence and criticism of fact-finding that the court below duly conducted.

With respect to Article 3:

According to the evidence Nos. 14-1 and 2 of the above Gap evidence duly employed by the court below, the defendant agreed to pay half of the amount of compensation paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff's employee, regardless of the degree of competition between the defendant's employee and the plaintiff's employee, if the judgment of the court of Korea became final and conclusive by the judgment of the court of Korea, the defendant's act of driving the non-party No. 1, who is the defendant's employee, constitutes a violation of the rules of experience, logic, non-exercise of the right to explanation, and incomplete deliberation. Thus, the judgment of the court below which judged that the plaintiff's act as the interpretation of the above defendant's act is clear in light of the contents of the above evidence No. 14-2

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jung-tae (Presiding Justice)