Witness's Witness and Correction Change

If it is reasonable to view that the first public notice was changed when it was known in light of the connected pleadings and inquiries before and after the entry in the protocol, while the witness first answer as the site for the documentary evidence presented by a judge, and he continued to do so, it was possible to see that the first public notice was changed.

[Defendant-Appellee] Attorney Lee Young-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellee

The Minister of Agriculture and Forestry of the Republic of Korea

Daegu High Court Decision 51No74 delivered on October 18, 1951

The final appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, Gap evidence No. 1 (a sales contract) was determined to be without any evidence to acknowledge Gap's testimony for the reasons that the court below rejected Gap's testimony. According to the records, Gap evidence No. 1 (a sales contract) had no effect on Gap's testimony, and the court below's conclusion that Eul evidence No. 3 (a copy of evidence No. 1) had no effect on Gap's testimony for the first instance court's testimony. If the plaintiff's testimony for the first instance court's testimony, the court below held that Eul evidence No. 3 (a copy of evidence No. 1) had no effect on Gap's testimony for the first instance court's testimony for the first instance court's testimony for the first instance court's testimony for the first instance court's testimony for the first instance court's testimony for the first instance court's testimony for the first instance court's testimony for the first instance court's ruling for the first instance court's testimony for the first instance court's ruling for the first instance court's testimony for the second instance's testimony for the first instance court's ruling.

The witness at the court of first instance examined the contents of the examination protocol of the witness at the court of first instance as to the presentation of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as the site. However, the witness at the first time during the examination, even if the witness's testimony cannot be acknowledged as the establishment of the evidence of this No. 1 during the examination, the witness at the court of first instance stated that the statement of this No. 1 was changed or corrected by clearly stating that the testimony of this No. 1 is a witness's creative name and seal, and that there is no difference in the fact that it is true, and there is no room for doubt in terms of contact and inquiry before and after the entry in the protocol. The court below interpreted the witness's testimony as the same meaning as the exhibition, and rejected the witness's testimony under the principle of free evaluation, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it as to the establishment of the evidence of this No. 1 during the examination, and therefore there is no error in the misapprehension of the opinion of the court below as to the establishment of the evidence of this evidence.

According to the judgment of the court below, if the testimony of the court of first instance, which corresponds to the facts of the plaintiff's assertion, is not reliable, and the testimony of the court of second instance is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff (Appellants) purchased the land before August 9, 278. The court below rejected the plaintiff's testimony entirely from the 5th anniversary of the fact that the plaintiff (Appellants) purchased the land from the 8th anniversary of the fact that the 4th anniversary of the fact that the 5th anniversary of the 8th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the fact that the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the fact that the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th 5th 5th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 60 6th 6th 6th 6th 6.

However, this case is so-called the so-called "the absolute condition for the plaintiff applicant" not only requires that the date and time of the sale be prior to August 9, 4278, but also that the decision should not be made as to whether there was a transaction fact after August 9, 4278, as long as the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim as stated in its reasoning. Therefore, the court below's explanation of the purport on the basis that there was no evidence to prove the existence of the plaintiff's principal transaction before August 9, 200 among the statements by Kim Jin-jin's witness in the same month, and the judgment of the court below is just, and the illegality of the judgment of the evidence of the lawsuit or the trial failure is against the authority of the court below's decision of the selection of evidence preparation, and therefore there is no reason to

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 401, Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)