The case holding that the fact finding by the court below as to the existence of the gift facts violates the rules of evidence

The case holding that the fact-finding by the court below on the existence of the gift facts violates the rules of evidence.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant Law Firm Sung-nam et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Suwon District Court Decision 92Na3912 delivered on January 8, 1993

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case shall be remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A summary of the reasoning of the judgment below as to the primary claim

The court below acknowledged that the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the defendant on November 30, 1990 with respect to the land of this case [1,745 square meters in Gyeonggi-gun] on the ground of the partition of co-owned property on November 30, 1990, and the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the defendant on February 7, 191. The court below held that the defendant's assertion that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant was invalid because the defendant made a false statement to the plaintiff that needs the plaintiff's seal imprint for the partition of the land of this case and obtained a seal imprint from the plaintiff who belongs to this, and forged relevant documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer after he received the seal imprint for the partition of the land of this case. The court below held that the plaintiff's assertion that the registration is invalid is without any reason to believe the above facts.

2. Determination of party members

However, examining relevant evidence in comparison with records, regarding the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the process during which the Plaintiff acquired the instant land, and the circumstances during which the ownership transfer registration was completed in the Defendant’s name, etc., in light of the following objectively confirmed circumstances, the lower court’s aforementioned determination of evidence is difficult to obtain as it goes against our sound common sense and empirical rule.

A. First of all, even if the defendant's assertion was made, the above transfer registration under the name of the defendant was made based on a gift different from the grounds for registration entered in the register. The issue in this case is whether the plaintiff donated the land of this case to the defendant, as alleged by the defendant. The direct evidence about this issue is that the plaintiff and the defendant stated the facts favorable to the defendant in the case against the defendant, such as fabrication of private documents, etc. in the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office 91 type No. 20343, the Sungnam District Prosecutors' Office, Sung-nam Office 91 type No. 20343, and that the non-party 3, who is a public official involved in the issuance of the plaintiff's certificate of personal seal impression attached at the time of applying for the registration of transfer. Thus, in determining the value of the statement, the plaintiff's primary claim is more reliable than the defendant and the above non-party 3, and it seems objectively important in light of the circumstances where the land of this case was donated to the plaintiff, and the extent of its ownership transfer registration can be confirmed.

B. However, the circumstances under which the statement made by the Plaintiff and the Defendant in the above criminal case coincide and objectively confirmed based on the background of the instant case are as follows.

(1) The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant

The plaintiff was married with the non-party 4, who was the husband of the deceased, but was abandoned, and was living alone difficult for about 40 years, and the above registration of ownership transfer was completed. Meanwhile, the defendant was the non-party 6's husband who was given birth between the non-party 5 and the non-party 6, who was given birth between the plaintiff and the non-party 5, and there was no blood relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. However, while the defendant was living at the above non-party 5's house, he was frying that his wife's house was accepted around September 199, while he was living together with the plaintiff from April 199.

(2) The importance of the instant land in the Plaintiff is important.

After the Plaintiff was married from her husband, the Plaintiff purchased the land of this case for old age with a fluorous money when she was married with her husband, or when she was born with her mother at her husband’s house, and there was no property value different from the land of this case except for the house with no other property value, so it is difficult to maintain her livelihood without being supported by another person if the land of this case is donated without permission. Furthermore, even according to the Defendant’s statement, even if the land of this case is based on the Defendant’s statement, the market value of the land of this case is at least KRW 300,000,000, at least KRW 150,00

(3) The reason why the transfer registration of ownership has been made in the name of the defendant.

At the time of the completion of the above registration, the Plaintiff left his seal imprint with the Defendant, and at the time of the Defendant’s issuance of the Plaintiff’s certificate on two occasions, the Plaintiff was on the Myeon Office together with the Defendant, but there was no her relative or relative with the Defendant on the issue of donation of the instant land.

C. Meanwhile, the above non-party 3's statement concerning the circumstances in which the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the defendant and the reasons why the certificate of the personal seal impression was issued are as follows.

(1) The plaintiff's statement.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff may not rely on the land in this case without the land, and it is difficult to view it only on the land in this case, there is no reason to reduce the land in this case to the Defendant, and there is no ground to apply to the Defendant. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s seal impression is due to the fact that the Plaintiff left the Defendant with a seal imprint and the Myeon Office needed a certificate of the personal seal impression to divide the land in this case, and even at the end of the Defendant, the Plaintiff was seated in the front seat of a civil petitioner, and the Defendant was completely unaware of the issuance of the Plaintiff’s personal seal impression necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership of the land

(2) The defendant's statement.

Since the Defendant’s wing up the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff donated the instant land to the Defendant. Around December 1990, the Defendant, who did not allow the Plaintiff to impliedly use the instant land, left the land to the Plaintiff regardless of how it is the need to use it, the Plaintiff could not absolutely leave the land that he created by himself, but thereafter, around the end of December 1990, the Defendant again left the land to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff appears to have well utilized the land, and the Plaintiff donated the land to the Defendant.

(3) Nonparty 3’s statement.

On January 15, 1991, the Defendant issued a certificate of personal seal impression to the Myeon office with the Plaintiff on January 15, 1991, after checking the Plaintiff’s intention directly, comparing it with the pictures on the individual resident registration card.

D. In light of the aforementioned objective circumstances, barring any special circumstance, it is clear that the Defendant is not the Plaintiff’s friendship, but the Defendant’s life-longed Nonparty 5’s fraud, and thus, barring any special circumstance, it does not constitute the subject of the Plaintiff’s belief and old age as asserted by the Defendant. Moreover, the instant land is almost the only property that the Plaintiff may depend on the Plaintiff’s maintenance of her life and her life. As such, the Plaintiff’s donation of the same property to the Defendant, which is the Defendant, the Defendant, who is the Defendant of the mountain seeds, merely for a few months without her relative relationship or her friendship and friendship, is contrary to sound common sense and empirical rule, and thus, it is difficult to believe that the Defendant’s statement is correct.

Furthermore, according to the defendant's statement, the plaintiff refused the defendant's request to leave the land of this case as originally, but changed his mind before the lapse of one month, and the plaintiff used the land of this case well. It is doubtful that such words are the plaintiff's donation of the land of this case to the defendant, and there is no explanation from the defendant about whether there was a special circumstance to alter the plaintiff's own mind as above. In light of these circumstances, the defendant's statement that the plaintiff donated the land of this case to the defendant of this case is difficult to believe as they are.

On the contrary, the Plaintiff’s statement that the Plaintiff did not have donated the land of this case to the Defendant is highly persuasive in light of the objective circumstances as seen above, and the Plaintiff’s statement that he was required to divide the land of this case into the Myeon office with his seal imprint affixed to the Defendant when he was issued a certificate of his seal imprint affixed to the Defendant, is consistent with the objective facts that had been registered as a result of the partition of co-owned property on November 30, 1990, which was two months before the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Defendant’s name. In addition, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff is a woman of the Docoran, the Plaintiff’s statement can be deemed as having credibility, barring any special circumstances, since he was aware that the registration procedure of co-owned property partition was not completed due to the Defendant’s falsehood, and there is a possibility that he can place a seal imprint or

Of course, if the above non-party 3's statement that he directly confirmed the plaintiff's intent at the time when the certificate of personal seal impression was issued is true, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted. However, on the other hand, the above non-party 3 made a statement that he knew of the plaintiff at ordinary level (which is the same as the evidence No. 4-9 and evidence No. 1-5) on the one hand, on the other hand, it is natural that the plaintiff's face at the time when the certificate of personal seal impression was issued, such as making a statement to the effect that he reported it to the effect that he had been issued a personal resident registration card by comparison with the personal resident registration card (Evidence No. 6-9 of the evidence No. 6-9 of this case). As such, it is difficult to see a suspicion that his responsibility related to

E. As seen above, the evidence consistent with the defendant's argument is difficult to believe easily, and the evidence rejected by the court below, which corresponds to the plaintiff's argument, can undermine the presumption of registration. Thus, the court below should have carefully deliberated on whether there is any special circumstance to give a real donation of the land of this case, which is a valuable property, to the defendant who has no blood relationship with the plaintiff, rather than denying the evidence that conforms to the plaintiff's argument.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the evidence that conforms to the plaintiff's assertion without properly examining whether there was such circumstance, and without explaining the reasons, it did not properly examine whether or not there was such circumstance. Thus, the court below did not properly hold a trial or found an error of finding a fact erroneous in violation of the rules of evidence, and it is clear that such an error affected the judgment, and therefore, there is a reason to point this out.

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

Justices Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)