Admissibility of evidence when the method of examination of evidence has been violated

In the absence of a statement of objection against the investigation of the representative of the family council in accordance with the method of the party's examination, it is not illegal even if the testimony was adopted and the facts were recognized.

Articles 344, 275, and 140 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Jinsan C&S Co., Ltd. (Attorney Sung-Gyeong et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Defendant 1 and two Defendants (Attorney Shin Young-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 76Na2795 delivered on June 1, 1977

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

The defendants' attorney's first ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that all real estate listed in the annexed list (1), (2), (3) of the judgment of the court below was owned by the plaintiff-friendly council, and that the real estate under (1) (2) of the same Presidential Decree was owned by the plaintiff-friendly council at the time of its implementation, and that the real estate under (3) of the same Presidential Decree was trusted in the name of the defendant 1 and the deceased non-party 1 of the deceased non-party 2, and that the real estate under (1) (2) of the above above (including the above non-party 1) was trusted in the trust by increasing the trustee's name under the joint name of 11 members, including the above non-party 1, and that the above (1) (2) (3) of the real estate was destroyed by the registry of the real estate, and that the ownership registration of the above real estate was made within 1970 and that the remaining (2) ownership registration of the real estate was valid within the extent of 121) the above judgment of the defendant 151 and the above (12).

In light of the records, the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence. In other words, the court below erred as to the non-party 3, who is the representative of the plaintiff's clan association, without examining the party himself, or as to the method of examination of evidence, it cannot be viewed that the court below adopted the above non-party 3's statement without delay by free evaluation, and it cannot be viewed as unlawful, and since the above non-party 1, who is one of the 11 trustees, died in 1951, which is the above 191, it cannot be viewed as the defendant 1, the south of the new Civil Code, and it cannot be viewed as the non-party 1's property under the name of the above non-party 1's owner or the non-party 1's heir's property under the name of the above non-party 1's title, and the court below's decision that the non-party 1's ownership cannot be viewed as non-party 1's ownership or the above real estate's property trust.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

In light of the records, it cannot be seen that there was an error such as the theory of litigation in the procedure to appoint the representative of the plaintiff's sub-council in accordance with the rules, establishment of the council's rules, or the rules, and the truster may exercise the right to request cancellation registration on behalf of the trustee with respect to the registration of invalidity of the cause of real estate held in title trust, and in such a case, he may directly request cancellation registration on his own by the truster, and in such a case, the plaintiff who held the title trust with respect to the real estate as above can seek confirmation of ownership on the part against the defendants who are liable to register the ownership transfer due to the cancellation or cancellation of each cause of invalidity like the order of the court below, with respect to the above real estate, because the plaintiff's ownership (1/11) on the above real estate was entirely completed on the part of the defendant 2, and therefore, it cannot be viewed that there was an error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the non-performance of the trust ownership ownership transfer registration on the plaintiff's sub-council and that there was no inconsistency in the above defense by the court.

Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)