Recognition of the establishment of documentary evidence in a lawsuit over any property devolving upon the State

In a lawsuit claiming ownership over the property devolving upon the State, the authenticity of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff cannot be recognized by the confession of the defendant (the State).

Article 5 of the Decree on the General Affairs of the Military Court, Article 325 of the Civil Procedure Act

Ethals

Republic of Korea Law Attorney Han Sung-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant of the Republic of Korea

Daegu District Court of the first instance, Daegu High Court of the second instance, 51 civilian 32 delivered on July 16, 1952

The original judgment shall be destroyed, and this case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant's representative is not only erroneous in the facts-finding but also inconsistent with the rules of evidence. In other words, the testimony by the witness Kim Jong-seok, which is consistent with the plaintiff's principal opinion, cannot be taken, and the plaintiff's request was dismissed. In the second instance court, the testimony by the witness Park Jong-dae was newly made and the decision of the first instance court was revoked and the decision of the first instance is accepted. However, the witness Park Jong-dae, which was adopted as a witness in the second instance court, is a limited person who is closely related to the plaintiff and employs the plaintiff, and only takes the witness's testimony as a limited person, and thus it is against the rules of evidence to revoke the judgment and allow the plaintiff's principal's opinion. In short, the plaintiff's request for a witness in the first instance court should be rejected without returning a question at the first instance court despite his favorable witness's action, and the plaintiff's request for a new witness's cancellation of the judgment after the first instance court's loss should be revoked.

According to the evidence of No. 2 (Registration No. 2) and No. 2 (Registration No. 3) without dispute as to the establishment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff purchased the real estate from the No. 3,60 won in the middle of July 5, 4278, and paid the proceeds in full, the evidence of No. 2) was known as the fact that the plaintiff purchased the real estate from Japan at the time of preparation No. 2, but the amount of the down payment is the site and the remaining amount was not known to the plaintiff, and it cannot be acknowledged that the remaining amount was paid before Aug. 9, 4278, and the fact that the No. 2 was no longer effective for the establishment of the sale and purchase contract No. 3 (No. 2) by the defendant's oral assertion that the sale and purchase of the real estate was no longer effective for the short-term period of No. 3 (No. 4) and the fact that the remaining amount was no more than 9 days prior to the date of sale and sale. 7).

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)