Binding force in the civil trial of facts established in the final and conclusive related criminal trial

In a civil trial, even though it is not bound by the facts recognized in a criminal trial, the facts recognized in the judgment of the related criminal case which has already been established, unless there are special circumstances, shall be sufficient evidence. Therefore, rejection is in violation of the rule of experience unless there are special circumstances which make it impossible to employ them.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Da1166, 81Meu897 Decided September 13, 1983

Freeboards

Attorney Ahn Young-do, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 82Na1711 delivered on June 20, 1984

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff and the defendant, based on macro evidence, continued a long dispute over the right to share of each owner of the above Triju Manufacturing Business in Gyeongcheon-gun and continued to exist, and they were newly issued under the name of the plaintiff and the defendant for a manufacture of the above Triju Manufacturing Business. The plaintiff's exclusive right to operate, manufacture, and personnel management of the above Triju shall be the plaintiff, but the defendant shall have the right to acquire and sell the alcoholic beverages manufactured by the plaintiff from the plaintiff to the production cost and settle the price calculated at the beginning of the following month. Since the above agreement was replaced with a new agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant on September 26 of the same year, and the plaintiff's previous agreement on the purchase and sale of alcoholic beverages pursuant to the above new agreement was rejected on the ground that the plaintiff's new agreement on the purchase and sale of alcoholic beverages would not have been concluded completely between the plaintiff and the defendant for the reason that the plaintiff's previous agreement on the purchase and sale of alcoholic beverages under the above new agreement on May 23 of the same year.

However, in light of the records, it is difficult to conclude that the above new business agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was invalidated by unilateral refusal of business operation under the plaintiff's new business agreement and the defendant's implied approval, such as the result of the examination of the witness of the court of first instance, part of the witness of the court of first instance, and the whole purport of oral argument at the court of first instance, even considering the facts presented by the court below based on the records, it is difficult to conclude that the above new business agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was invalid by the plaintiff's new business agreement and the defendant's implied approval. In addition, even if the court below rejected Eul's testimony of Kim Jong-ju's 34 and 44, the defendant's testimony of the above new business operation agreement, without the plaintiff's permission, was prosecuted for larceny, but the defendant's new business operation agreement was just after the above new business operation agreement, and even if the above new business operation agreement was not concluded after the above new business operation agreement, it cannot be concluded that the defendant's new business operation agreement was not in violation of the aforementioned new business operation agreement.

Therefore, the above measures of the court below shall be deemed to have committed an illegal act of finding facts without any evidence or in violation of the rule of experience, and its illegality has influenced the conclusion of the judgment, and it shall be deemed to fall under the grounds for reversal of Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., and therefore, it is reasonable

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court which is the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)