In the case of fact-finding based on comprehensive evidence, the statement of the evidence rejected

In the case of a comprehensive determination of various evidences, the contradictory and unnecessary parts of each evidence shall be removed, the joint parts shall be required, and the joint parts shall be shared in the judgment materials. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that each part of the evidence contents which conflict with or conflict with the recognized facts shall not be adopted even if there is no express evidence. Therefore, there is no error in the court's failure to specify the rejection of parts inconsistent with the recognized facts among the odic evidence.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da3198 Decided March 8, 1983 (Gong1983,646)

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na39787 delivered on March 5, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first and fourth points

In full view of the evidence, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not use the site of this case since November 1, 1951 by using it as the military installation site of the training cluster in the training cluster. Since February 2, 1975 after the date when the price was relocated, the court below constructed or constructed the telecommunication antenna, the tennis, the tennis, the kitchen, the kitchen, the restaurant, the restaurant, the store shooting range, the elementary building, the warehouse, and the military employees for the use of the site of this case by December 1, 1991. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not use the site of this case since November 1, 1985, by recognizing the fact that the remaining facilities were currently used until December 1, 1991.

In addition, in the case of a comprehensive determination of various evidences, the contradictory and unnecessary parts of each evidence are removed, necessary, and they are used for the determination materials, so it is reasonable to view that the parts in each evidence content that conflict with or conflict with the recognized facts are not adopted even without express specification (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Da3198, Mar. 8, 1983). Therefore, the court below did not specify the rejection of parts that conflict with the recognized facts among the respective macrosive evidence, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit. The arguments are without merit.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the judgment of the court below, since each testimony of Non-party 1 and Non-party 2 of the witness of the court of first instance explicitly rejected the testimony of the court below, it cannot be said that there is a omission of judgment. Further, each image of No. 4 and No. 5-1 through No. 6 (each photograph) cannot be considered as a evidence inconsistent with the judgment of the court below. Thus, the court below's rejection of the testimony cannot be viewed as a omission of judgment because it did not reject it. There is no reason for the argument.

3. On the third ground for appeal

In preparation for an emergency, military personnel are often moving their work units from time to time according to the military operations plan. In light of the special characteristics of the military, such as the poor residential situation surrounding the place of the military station in large cases, military personnel are one of the necessary facilities for military purposes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da483, Oct. 27, 1992). In the same purport, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the above-mentioned building as one of the facilities for military purposes, and there is no reason to view that the above-mentioned building is one of the facilities for military purposes.

4. Accordingly, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)