Value of evidence of lack of good faith in the contents of the document

If the contents of the document cannot be said to be prepared for a good faith transaction, or if the contents of the document violate the experiment, it shall not be admitted as evidence.

Articles 185, 257, and 325 of the Civil Procedure Act

Seoul High Court Decision 200

Han-sung, Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for a legal representative of the Republic of Korea

Jeju District Court of the first instance, Daegu High Court of the second instance, 52 civilian 387 delivered on December 4, 1953

The original judgment shall be destroyed, and the main case shall be transferred to the Gwangju High Court.

The Defendant’s agent’s ground of appeal is against the rules of evidence, and there is a mistake as to the fact-finding. If the testimony of the witness and witness Kim Jong-ho, which could be recognized based on the witness’s testimony, is comprehensively examined, the non-party’s profit margin loaning 28,000 won to the non-party Japanese normal person on May 13, 4278, and the non-party’s right to collateral security was established on the real estate, which is the ownership of the property, but the Japanese person provided the property as the payment in kind for the non-party’s profit margin on June 3, 200 and acquired the ownership of the property of the non-party’s property. However, the evidence Nos. 2 is a private document, and the Defendant raised a dispute as to the establishment of the evidence, and even if the Plaintiff failed to prove the difference, it was found that the non-party’s testimony was inconsistent with the rules of evidence, which is a witness’s related party.

As discussed in the first point, the court below's second point is the Eup in violation of the psychological exhaustion and the lack of reasons. The defendant, as the plaintiff bears the burden of proof on the establishment of the evidence No. 2, taking the witness testimony of this le-hee, who is an interested party to this case, and the witness Kim Jong-ho, who is unrelated to the establishment of the evidence No. 2, there is a violation of the first point, and there is also a violation of the psychological exhaustion and the lack of reasons. Accordingly, it is evident that the plaintiff who takes over the property in this case from the non-entitled person's non-entitled person's non-entitled person's profit-making.

According to the witness's testimony on May 9, 4278, the court below found that the testimony of the witness Kim Jong-ho and Lee Jong-ho and the original facts on the market. However, according to the witness's testimony, 28,000 won of the real estate on the short-term 9th day of May, 4278 and lent 28,000 won of the same amount to Japan, but did not pay 90,000 won of the same amount to Japan on June 9 of the same year, and entered into a contract for payment in kind with the same person on the collateral. However, according to Gap evidence No. 5, the court below's decision that the amount of the collateral on the collateral is 15,000 won of 15,000 won of the high amount of the collateral, and that the loan is 13th day of May and 30th day of February of the same year, and that there is no violation of the rules of the Civil Procedure Act that it would be no more than 9th day of February of the date of the loan.

Justices Kim Jong-il (Presiding Justice)