Several appraisal results in conflict with each other;

If there are several appraisal results contrary to the same facts, it is legitimate that the court recognizes the facts based on one of them, unless it violates the rules of experience and logic.

Article 305 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Da2091 Delivered on November 23, 1971

Kim Jong-seok

Attorney Lee Jae-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Gwangju High Court Decision 78Na446,447 delivered on November 27, 1980

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. If there are several appraisal results as to a certain same fact, there is no way to conclude that it would be legitimate unless it violates the empirical rules or logical rules (see Supreme Court Decision 71Da2091, Nov. 23, 1971). The court below's decision adopted the appraisal results of 7 large 20 m20 m20 m2, Dong-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City, which is adjacent to one another and 102 large m20 m2, such as 10 m2, 30 m20 m2,000 m20 m2,000 m20 m2,000 m2,000 m20 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000

2. According to the records, the plaintiff asserted that the land on the same part of the building owned by the defendant on the 23th day of May 24, 1978 as stated in the first instance court's pleading against the defendant's counterclaim is owned by the plaintiff belonging to 102-1-77, and even if it belongs to 102-1 of the defendant's ownership, this part is occupied since February 15, 1955, and it is obvious that it is the plaintiff's possession of the site by asserting the prescriptive acquisition. However, the decision of the court below did not have any evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff used the part of the land in question by the defendant's assertion, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff occupied the part of the land in question.

3. The judgment of the court below is a favorable judgment against the counterclaim claim, i.e., the plaintiff., the plaintiff. However, since the judgment below concluded illegal possession of the plaintiff by centering on the boundary line of the judgment below acknowledged above, the defendant can appeal the part ordering delivery as long as the boundary line was erroneous as seen above.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges who decide to reverse and remand the judgment of the court below on the grounds of its reasoning.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)