Examples of fact-finding in violation of the rules of evidence in the recognition of documentary evidence;

Examples of fact-finding in violation of the rules of evidence in the recognition of documentary evidence;

Article 394 of the Civil Procedure Act

No. 50

Lee Young-ju et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 62Na170 delivered on August 29, 1962

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

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's legal representative are as shown in the annexed appellate brief. According to the explanation of the reasons in the original judgment, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry shall hold an open auction for multi plant cultivation farmland through the newspaper on February 22, 1952, and the auction date shall be no later than the end of March 23, 1952, and the auction date shall be no more than the end of March 23-1952, and the auction place shall be no more than the end of March 23, 1952, and the auction place shall be no more than the end of March 23, 1952, which shall be designated as the local office of the Si/Gun office or the Si/Gun office in charge of the management of the farm to which the original judgment belongs. However, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that Eul, which is the evidence for which the original judgment occurred, has made the public notice through the newspaper, and even though no other original judgment, it is possible to find that there is evidence of the fact through the newspaper, regardless of which the original judgment is against the rules of evidence.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Lee Jin-chul (Presiding Judge)