(a) Evidence and confession of the private document;

(b) Evidence and confession of private documents concerning the vested farmland case;

(a) If there is no dispute between the parties on the establishment of a private document, it shall be binding on the confession that the other party has led to the confession of the assertion of the person who has presented a certificate as to the authenticity of the document, and the court shall recognize the formal evidence of the confession regardless of the donation made by the court on the authenticity of the document.

B. Since the provisions concerning confessions under the Civil Procedure Act do not apply to a lawsuit as to farmland devolving upon the original state, even if the defendant recognizes the formation of a private document, the court shall not bind it, and the court shall again recognize the formal evidence by evidence, and may not serve the contents in the judgment data.

Articles 325, 257, 215, 22(d)(g) of the Civil Procedure Act

Kim Chuncheon

5. 5. 5

Seoul High Court Decision 50No316 delivered on March 25, 1952

The original judgment shall be destroyed.

This case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant-appellant's ground of appeal No. 3 on the ground of this case's decision of the first instance court and second instance court is that the fact that the document was made as of August 9, 4278 on the legal effective date of the limit of property ownership, that is, the document was made as of August 14, 4278, is unfair as evidence, and it is necessary to obtain authorization from the local minister under the Provisional Farmland Management Order at the time of the purchase and sale of farmland, and thus, the defendant-appellant's ground of appeal No. 3 on the ground of this case's decision of the first instance court and the second instance court filed an appeal against the denied observer.

According to the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, it is clear that the court below recognized the plaintiff's assertion and accepted the whole of the plaintiff's claim by integrating the contents of No. 1, which are not disputed between the parties concerned, as well as other evidence and other evidence with which the entries of No. 1 were presented by them. In general civil litigation, unless dispute between the parties concerned exists in the establishment of private documents, this shall be the other party's assertion as to the authenticity of the relevant documentary evidence, and unless it is related to the matter of ex officio investigation, the court shall, in accordance with the general confession principle under the Civil Procedure Act, be bound by the confession and recognize the formal evidence ability. However, in a lawsuit with respect to the real estate attached to the farmland level belonging to the original case, as stipulated in Article 215 subparag. 2(d) and (6)(g) of the Civil Procedure Act, it can be interpreted that the principle of confession and recognition under the Civil Procedure Act is excluded and applied only to the said matters.

According to the records, although the facts that the plaintiff's evidence No. 1 was the defendant, the part of the confirmed evidence and the part of the registration No. 1 in the plaintiff's evidence No. 1 can be recognized as an official document, but since the part of the document No. 1 can not be seen as an official document, the court below's judgment is binding upon the defendant's holder in time of emergency according to the purpose of the exhibition explanation, and it is not possible for the court below to adopt the contents of the document and make public use of the judgment materials by adopting appropriate evidence in accordance with the lawful method and procedure. However, the court below erred in the judgment of the court below that it is improper for the court below to see that it is reasonable to see that the judgment No. 1 in the same manner as the ordinary civil procedure, disregarding the rules of the next time and to establish the evidence No. 1 in this case as the defendant as the person, and that the entries of the document No. 1 in the plaintiff's evidence No. 1 should be seen as an important evidence related to the plaintiff's claim as a sales contract for the plaintiff. 4.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)