The meaning of the principle of free evaluation of evidence declared by Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act and the methods and limitations of fact-finding by judges

Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 2009Da77198, 77204 Decided April 13, 2012 (Gong2012Sang, 763)

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) (Law Firm Lee & Lee, Attorneys Cho-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

ACC (Law Firm, Attorneys Jeong Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2016Na2041461, 2041478 decided February 10, 2017

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

In light of the purport of the entire pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence, the court shall determine whether the arguments are true in accordance with logical and empirical rules based on the ideology of social justice and equity (Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act). The facts duly confirmed by the court below that the original judgment does not exceed the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence are binding on the court of final appeal (Article 432 of the same Act).

For the reasons indicated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing the reasoning of the judgment, the lower court acknowledged that (1) from February 18, 2014 to April 25, 2014, the Defendant continued to perform the mechanical facility construction (hereinafter “instant construction”) among the treatment facilities of sewage at the KUSCA site, and completed the construction on April 25, 2014; and (2) rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was a partial non-construction and erroneous construction; and (2) recognized that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the order for additional parts, and accordingly, the Defendant supplied the parts; and subsequently, rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant waived

The allegation in the grounds of appeal in this part is purporting to dispute the fact-finding that led to the judgment of the court below. It is not acceptable to accept the judgment of the court of fact-finding because it is merely an error of the selection of evidence and the determination of the value of evidence belonging to the free evaluation of evidence. In addition, examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, although the court below's reasoning was partially insufficient, it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the burden of proof and contract for non-execution, omission of judgment, or beyond the bounds

2. As to the third ground for appeal

A. The principle of free evaluation of evidence, which is declared by Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act, means that it is not necessary to be bound by the formal and legal rules of evidence, and does not allow a judge’s arbitrary judgment. Thus, the recognition of facts shall be in accordance with logical and empirical rules based on the principle of justice and equity, based on the evidentiary evidence duly admitted through the evidence examination procedure, and even if the fact-finding belongs to the discretion of the fact-finding court, it shall not exceed the limit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da7198, 77204, Apr. 13, 2012).

B. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court acknowledged that (1) the date of completion of the instant construction contract was determined on February 28, 2014 by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, but the wastewater treatment tank to be supplied by the Plaintiff was immediately brought in to the construction site and completed the instant construction work on April 25, 2014; (2) it was confirmed that the Plaintiff agreed to settle the increased labor cost due to such delay in construction; (3) ① the Defendant paid the instant construction cost of KRW 73,005,276 (hereinafter “on-site personnel cost”) to six associates who invested in the construction site during the instant construction period (hereinafter “on-site personnel cost”) to the Defendant’s total labor cost of KRW 48,00,000, and determined that the instant construction contract paid the construction cost by deeming the total labor cost of KRW 48,000,000 to constitute the on-site personnel cost of the instant construction site as the total labor cost of KRW 705,700,2700.

C. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the allegation in the grounds of appeal on this part is erroneous in the lower court’s determination as to the selection of evidence and the probative value of evidence belonging to the free trial of the fact-finding court. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err in its judgment by violating the legal doctrine of a contract agreement, failing to satisfy the reasons therefor, or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical

D. (1) However, examining the following circumstances revealed by the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, it is difficult to accept the lower court’s determination that the lower court deemed the full payment of the instant field personnel expenses as the personnel expenses for installation of field pipes in calculating the increased personnel expenses due to the delay in construction as set forth in subparagraph (2)(3).

(A) The construction cost statement prepared by the Defendant (Evidence 9, hereinafter “instant construction cost statement”) divided the items into “1. Domestic SPOL production” and “2. On-site installation” and divided the domestic construction cost and construction cost into two categories. The items under the “2. On-site installation” include the “2-1 pipeline installation” and “2-2-2 steel manufacturing/ installation” and the “2-2-2 steel product installation” and thus, the items of “2-2 steel product manufacturing/ installation” appear to be the construction cost for the on-site work.

(B) In addition, the details contained in the items of the above “2-2 manufacturing/installation of steel products” include steel products related to sewage treatment tanks, which the Plaintiff wishes to bring into the construction site of this case, such as reactivitying upper parts of the reaction, reaction Hands, etc.

In fact, on March 25, 2014, the Plaintiff brought the reaction to the instant construction site. On the construction site of the instant construction site, the Plaintiff stated that “the manufacture of steel products” was carried out in addition to the pipeline installation work (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do329, Feb. 18, 2014) and “the supplementary work for the reaction adjustment department and its hosting, and the installation of handbails (see, e.g., March 10, 2014). This is the same as the work included in the “2-2 manufacturing/ installation of steel products”.

(C) In addition, the items of “2. On-site installation” of the construction cost statement of this case include KRW 48,00,000 as personnel expenses for the said “2-1 pipeline installation work” work for 30 days, and KRW 24,000,00 as personnel expenses for the said “2-2 steel production/ installation” work for 15 days. In fact, the aviation schedule scheduled before departure to six persons who were enrolled in the instant construction site of this case from the Republic of Korea on February 17, 2014 and returned to the Republic of Korea on April 7, 2014 at the time of departure, which is planned for construction work from February 18, 2014 to April 6, 2014, corresponding to the construction work period for the aforementioned “2-1 pipeline installation work” as stated in the construction cost of this case and the construction work period for the “2-2-2/6.”

(D) In light of such factual relations, barring any other circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the construction work, as indicated in the construction cost statement of this case, was actually carried out at the construction site of this case by the instant parts, and the labor cost paid by the Defendant to the instant parts was also included in the labor cost for the “2-2 manufacturing and installation of steel products.”

(2) Nevertheless, the lower court, without examining all the above circumstances, determined as above on the premise that the total amount of personnel expenses to be paid to the site of this case belongs to the field pipeline installation personnel expenses. In so doing, the lower court erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence by violating logical and empirical rules, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)