A. Limitation of free evaluation of evidence

(b) reasons why the provision on the selection of appraisal in the appraisal commission is not applicable.

C. Existence of admissibility of the appraisal result by an appraiser who did not take an oath (negative)

A. The principle of free evaluation of evidence, which is declared under Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act, refers to a dismissal from the formal and legal evidence rules, and it does not refer to arbitrary judgments by the judge, and thus, it is necessary to promote the truth-finding in accordance with logical and empirical rules on the basis of the ideology of social justice and equity, and even if the fact-finding belongs to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court, it shall not escape from the same limitation.

B. Article 314 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that, as a client for an authoritative institution equipped with professional research facilities, such as a public office or school, the provisions on oaths of an appraiser shall not apply. Thus, if the appraisal is made pursuant to the said Article, the foregoing authoritative institution must ensure its fairness, authenticity, and expertise.

(c) The results of physical appraisal by an expert witness who has not taken an oath shall be inadmissible;

Articles 187, 314, and 306 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Attorney Choi Jae-deok et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

ASEAN Transport Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 81Na3168 delivered on January 27, 1982

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the following facts as follows: the plaintiff's physical evaluation entrusted by the court below reduced work ability as an urban or rural worker due to the decline in the inter-functional function due to the accident in this case; and the plaintiff, after the accident in this case, immediately after the accident in this case, performed the operation of the right-hand scirrary agents, and the considerable time has passed, so the symptoms are fixed so that it is unnecessary to administer a specific long-term medication and whether there is a merger certificate, or its degree is uncertain, and rejected the result of the

The principle of free evaluation of evidence, which is declared under Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act, refers to the separation from the formal and legal rules of evidence, and it does not allow a judge's arbitrary judgment. Thus, it should be judged whether the facts are true in accordance with logical and empirical rules based on the ideology of social justice and equity by legitimate evidence which has gone through legitimate examination of evidence. Although the recognition of facts is within the discretionary power of a fact-finding court, it can not escape from such limitation.

However, the court below rejected the appraisal results of the above diagnosis by the chief of the Seoul University affiliated with the first instance court. The court below confirmed the same facts as the above diagnosis results by the appraisal results of 47-16 Jeju, Sungsan-dong, 47. The court below's determination that Article 314 of the Civil Procedure Act allows public offices, schools, and other organizations with considerable facilities or foreign public offices to entrust appraisal to such organizations, which are not natural persons, and it does not apply the provisions on oaths to public offices or other organizations with professional research facilities. Thus, if the appraisal results pursuant to Article 314 of the Civil Procedure Act are conducted by an authoritative institution as above, the court below's determination that the appraisal results in the above examination under the name of the above Jeju University's physical entrustment should be guaranteed, and it is obvious that the appraisal results in the examination results in the above examination by the court below did not meet the requirements of the first instance court's physical diagnosis results in violation of the provisions on oaths under the Civil Procedure Act, and it is doubtful that the appraisal results do not meet the above requirements of the examination results.

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

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)