[1] Where an agreement is acknowledged differently from the contents of the disposal document, the application of the probative value and free evaluation of evidence of the disposal document

[2] In a case where fact-finding is conducted by comprehensive evidence, the part of the evidence rejected is clearly required (negative)

[1] Even if a disposal document is a disposal document, if there is a special and implied agreement different from the content of the document, a part of the content of the document may be recognized differently, and the interpretation of the legal act of the maker may be determined by free conviction to the extent that it does not contravene the empirical and logical rules.

[2] In a case where the fact-finding court conducts fact-finding based on the evidence, it is reasonable to view that the evidence value is unfair even if there is no statement that the court does not adopt any part of the evidence, which is contrary to the facts recognized by the court, among the contents of the evidence, unless there is a special evidence such as a disposition document, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of judgment because the fact-finding court did not state the purport of rejecting any part inconsistent with the facts found among the evidence or did not state the reasons for rejection.

[1] Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 105 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 187 and 393 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da8418 delivered on July 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 2152), Supreme Court Decision 93Da32514 delivered on May 24, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3059), Supreme Court Decision 95Da54167 delivered on April 12, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1516) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da18129 delivered on November 12, 193 (Gong194, 1994, 89) (Gong194, 294, 297Da964969 delivered on August 26, 1994)

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Young-ok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other

Busan District Court Decision 95Na2200 delivered on September 6, 1995

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The Defendants and Defendant 2’s grounds of appeal are examined together (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. On the first ground for appeal

Even in a disposition document, if there is a special or implied agreement different from the content of the document, a part of the content of the document may be acknowledged differently, and the interpretation of the legal act by the maker may be determined with free conviction within the extent not inconsistent with the empirical and logical rules (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Meu12506, Dec. 28, 1989; 85Meu1046, May 26, 1987).

The court below, based on its evidence, purchased the house as stated in Gap evidence No. 2 (a sales contract) from the defendants on June 18, 1985, and recognized that the plaintiff purchased the above house as well as the 2,093/4,407 shares of the real estate owned by the defendants among access roads to the above house not stated in the above sales contract, in light of the process and judgment of the evidence preparation, and records, it is just, and it shall not be deemed that there was any error of misconception of facts due to insufficient deliberation or violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds for appeal. The ground for appeal shall not be accepted since it criticizes the determination of evidence and the recognition of facts which belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, and it cannot be accepted.

2. On the second ground for appeal

In addition, in a case where the fact-finding court conducts the fact-finding by compiling the evidence, it is reasonable to view that the evidence value is unfair even if there is no express statement that the part inconsistent with the facts recognized by the court among the contents of evidence, unless there are special evidences such as a disposal document, is not adopted (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da3198, Mar. 8, 198). Therefore, the court below did not state the purport of rejecting the part inconsistent with the facts-finding among the evidence in the ground of appeal or did not state the reason for rejection, and it did not err in the misapprehension of the judgment as alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)