Can Facts Found in Another Judgment Be Used without Proof? The Scope of Facts Known to the Court (Judicial Notice) and the Standard of Proof in Civil Litigation

Question

Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that facts admitted by a party in court and manifest facts need no proof. If the range of facts requiring no proof is widened, parties are saddled with unfavorable facts without any opportunity to contest them; if it is narrowed, a burden arises under which the court must prove anew facts it already knows. Where to draw this range is the point at which procedural guarantees and litigation economy stand opposed.

The larger the case, the more related cases surrounding the same facts are scattered across various courts. How the facts recorded in the judgment document of an earlier case may be used in a later case, and whether the fact that a judgment was rendered and the facts recognized in that judgment may be accorded the same weight, are the first question.

The second question is the degree of proof of facts requiring proof. In cases where evidence directly showing the cause, as with a fire, is difficult to leave behind, how are suspicion and proof distinguished, and who bears the disadvantage of facts that ultimately remain unproved?

This article does not evaluate whether the fact-finding of individual cases is correct. It goes no further than arranging the materials to check and the points where interpretation diverges, within the range stated by the provisions and the Summaries of Decision of the two judgments.

Material to check

First, the structure of Article 288. This provision lists admitted facts and facts of common knowledge as facts that need not be proved, and its proviso states that an admission contrary to the truth may be revoked if it is proved that the admission resulted from a mistake. The provision does not define what facts of common knowledge are, so their scope must be ascertained by following the lines drawn by the case law.

Second, the principle of free evaluation of evidence in Article 202. The court, taking into account the entire import of the pleadings and the results of the examination of evidence, determines by free conviction whether an assertion of fact is true, on the basis of the ideals of social justice and equity and in accordance with the rules of logic and experience. The passage in judgment 2008Da6755 stating that all the evidence is to be examined comprehensively in light of the rules of experience can be read together with the method of determination prescribed in this provision.

Third, the routes by which evidence enters the courtroom. In the case decided in judgment 2019Da222140, the judgments and related documents of other lower courts had never been submitted as evidence. Article 343 provides for two methods: submitting a document by way of an application for documentary evidence, and applying for an order directing the person holding the document to submit it. Article 290 provides that the court need not examine evidence applied for by a party if it finds that evidence unnecessary, except where it is the only evidence for a fact asserted by that party. In the case decided in judgment 2019Da222140, the central point of the determination was that the judgments and related documents of other lower courts had never been submitted as evidence and that the parties had made no assertions concerning them.

Fourth, the provisions on elucidation. Article 136(1) provides that the presiding judge may, in order to clarify the litigation relations, question the parties on matters of fact or law and urge them to offer proof, and Article 136(4) requires the court to give the parties an opportunity to state their opinions on a legal matter that they are clearly found to have overlooked. These provisions should be considered together when thinking about how a court that knows the contents of a judgment in a related case should bring that knowledge into the proceedings.

Fifth, Article 203. This provision states that the court may not render judgment on matters that a party has not applied for. Judgment 2019Da222140 cited Articles 203 and 288 together as reference provisions, so the full text of the judgment shows how the problem of basing a determination on circumstances not asserted by the parties connects with the problem of the scope of facts that need not be proved.

Sixth, the record in cases disputing causation. In fire or accident cases, materials such as the point and time of ignition, the conditions at the scene, eyewitness statements, reports of investigating bodies and expert appraisal results are generally used to prove the facts of causation. These materials can be checked one by one to see whether they merely show a considerable probability or reach the degree at which an ordinary person would entertain no doubt.

Possible readings

The reading that takes the range of manifest facts broadly seeks to reduce the burden of repeatedly hearing the same facts by treating even the contents of other judgments learned by the court in the course of its duties as manifest facts. The point that the advantage in litigation economy grows the more related cases are pending before the same court and the facts overlap lies in the direction that supports this reading.

The reading that takes the range narrowly distinguishes the fact that a judgment was rendered from the facts within the reasons for the judgment. The 2019Da222140 decision adopted this reading, holding that, going beyond the existence of a final and conclusive judgment, the facts constituting the reasons for that judgment also cannot be regarded as manifest facts to the court. The judgment explained that the legal principle that the fact-finding in a related civil action constitutes powerful evidence but may be rejected by setting forth reasonable grounds in the light of other evidence is also premised on the fact that those facts are not manifest facts.

The difference between the two readings appears in the procedural position of the parties. Once a fact becomes a manifest fact, no proof is required, so the opportunity for the opposing party to contest that fact is itself narrowed. If it is handled as Evidence, the judgment document is submitted as documentary evidence, and the opposing party may produce other evidence rebutting that fact-finding. This is how one may read the reason why the statements that a related judgment is powerful evidence and that it may be rejected are placed together in a single sentence.

As to the degree of proof, in cases where the evidence of causation easily disappears, an argument may arise that proof should be regarded as made where a substantial possibility is shown. The 2008Da6755 decision held that proof in a civil action is not natural-scientific proof in which not the slightest doubt may exist, but proves a high degree of probability, and that such determination requires a degree at which an ordinary person would harbor no doubt. And it affirmed the determination of the court below that the mere suspicion that there was a substantial possibility the fire occurred from a cigarette was insufficient to recognize that it was caused by the cigarette lit by employees of Company Ka.

The direction in which the disadvantage of unproved facts falls must also be read together. The 2008Da6755 decision affirmed the determination of the court below rejecting the plaintiff's assertions on the ground that the plaintiff bore the burden of proof that the cause of the fire lay in the negligence of employees of Company Ka. It reads as a structure whereby, if proof does not reach a high degree of probability, that disadvantage falls on the party bearing the burden of proof. However, because this Summary of Decision does not address a separate legal principle that lightens the burden of proof, whether there are areas in which individual statutes or other judgments prescribe different methods of proof must be confirmed separately.

The two decisions stand at different stages. The former decision addresses which facts require proof, and the latter addresses how far a fact requiring proof must be proved. Which reading is to be applied to an individual case is for the reader to determine, after checking against the Records whether the related judgment was submitted as Evidence and to what extent the materials on causation remain.

What the decisions held

Supreme Court Decision 2019Da222140 decided August 9, 2019 held that "beyond the existence of the final and conclusive judgment of the civil action that took place between the defendant and a third party, the facts constituting the reasons for that judgment also cannot be regarded as manifest facts to the court." It then explained that "in a civil trial, facts recognized in a judgment of a related civil action that has already become final and conclusive constitute powerful evidence absent special circumstances, but the legal principle that, where it is difficult to adopt the fact-finding of the final and conclusive judgment of the related civil action as it is in the light of the contents of other evidence submitted in the civil trial at hand, it may be rejected by setting forth reasonable grounds, is also premised on the fact that the facts among the reasons of the civil judgment rendered final and conclusive as such do not constitute manifest facts." The judgment reversed and remanded the judgment of the court below, which had treated the facts among those reasons as manifest facts to the court, despite the fact that at the trial court and the court below of that case the judgment documents of other lower court judgments had never been submitted as Evidence and the parties had made no assertions in that regard.

Supreme Court Decision 2008Da6755 decided October 28, 2010 held that "the proof of facts in a civil action is not natural-scientific proof in which not the slightest doubt may exist, but, absent special circumstances, proves a high degree of probability whereby it may be acknowledged that a certain fact existed, comprehensively examining all evidence in the light of the rules of experience, and such determination requires a degree at which an ordinary person would harbor no doubt." Although it was suspected that there was a substantial possibility that the fire occurred from a cigarette, that suspicion alone was insufficient to recognize that it was caused by the cigarette lit by employees of Company Ka, and the judgment affirmed the determination of the court below rejecting the plaintiff's assertions on the ground that the plaintiff bore the burden of proving that the cause of the fire lay in the negligence of employees of Company Ka, and dismissed the final appeal in its entirety.

Practical checklist

This item is not advice but a bundle of questions that may be asked when comparing the Records. First, one may ask through what route the related judgment entered this case. Whether the judgment document was submitted as documentary evidence, and if it was submitted, which party produced it with what purpose of proof, and whether the opposing party produced Evidence contesting that fact-finding, can be checked by court date.

Second, one may ask on what basis the judgment recognized facts. Whether the expression "manifest facts to the court" was used in the reasons for the judgment, and whether its object is the existence of the related judgment or the facts within the reasons for that judgment, can be read by distinguishing them. Whether the party ever asserted that fact can also be compared against the minutes of oral argument and preparatory pleadings.

Third, one may ask about the degree of proof. Placing the materials supporting the facts of causation one by one, one can arrange whether what each material shows is a possibility or a probability, and whether there is material excluding other possible causes. Whether the burden of proof for the facts of causation lies with which party can also be confirmed in light of the grounds for the claim.

Fourth, one may ask about the conduct of the proceedings by the court. Whether there is a record of the presiding judge urging proof or recommending the submission of the related judgment, and whether an opportunity to state opinions on matters of law overlooked by a party was given, can be confirmed. This is in every respect only a list of materials to check, and the conclusion is drawn by the reader.

Glossary

Manifest facts are listed in Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act, together with admitted facts, as facts requiring no proof. The 2019Da222140 decision held that the facts constituting the reasons of a final and conclusive judgment do not fall within manifest facts to the court.

The principle of free evaluation of evidence is the principle that the court, in light of the purport of the whole of oral argument and the results of the examination of Evidence, determines the truth of a factual assertion by its free conviction in accordance with the logic and rules of experience (Article 202).

High degree of probability is the expression used by the 2008Da6755 decision when explaining the degree of proof in a civil action. The judgment held that such determination requires a degree at which an ordinary person would harbor no doubt.

Burden of proof is used to refer to the burden of the party bearing the disadvantage when a fact remains unproved. The 2008Da6755 decision affirmed the determination of the court below that the plaintiff bore the burden of proving that the cause of the fire lay in negligence.

Sources and limitations

The source of the provisions is the current original texts of the National Law Information Center (Articles 136, 202, 203, 288, 290, and 343 of the Civil Procedure Act), and the date of comparison is October 16, 2026. As the current Civil Procedure Act is the Act partially amended on September 29, 2026, whether it is the same as the wording at the time of the lawsuits addressed by the two judgments must be confirmed separately through the history of amendments. Procedural provisions must also be read on the basis of the wording at the time of the relevant act of litigation.

The judgments were compared against the Holdings, Summary of Decision, and decretal portion of the original texts on the National Law Information Center. Because the full text of the reasons for judgment was not compared, facts such as the contents of the related lower court judgment, the circumstances of the fire, and the amount claimed are not recorded in this article.

Other types of facts not requiring proof that are discussed alongside manifest facts, and other legal principles that lighten the burden of proof, are not addressed in the Summaries of Decision of these two judgments and are therefore placed outside the scope of comparison of this article.

Points left open

The 2019Da222140 decision used the expression "going beyond the existence of a final and conclusive judgment." Whether this was an affirmative determination that the existence of the judgment itself may become manifest facts to the court, or whether it merely left that point as a premise, is a matter to be confirmed in the full text of the judgment.

The same judgment addressed the fact-finding of a civil judgment. What weight facts recognized in a criminal judgment or an administrative judgment carry in a later civil trial, and whether the same logic concerning the range of manifest facts applies as it is, cannot be known from this Summary of Decision alone.

The more electronic litigation expands and the more easily the court can access the Records and judgment documents of other cases, the greater the demand may become as to the procedures through which facts learned by the court must pass before being taken as the basis of the determination. To what extent the method passing through clarification and the submission of documentary evidence is required leaves room for further arrangement.

Whether the high degree of probability standard of the 2008Da6755 decision is applied in the same form in areas where determining the cause is structurally difficult (medical care, the environment, products, and the like), or is supplemented by a separate legal principle, remains a question requiring the judgments of those areas to be compared separately.

When to reconsider

If the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act concerning facts not requiring proof, the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and documentary evidence are amended, or if a new determination of the Supreme Court concerning the range of manifest facts to the court or the degree of proof in a civil action is handed down, this white paper will be rewritten.

At that time, the method of handling the fact-finding of a related judgment as Evidence and the degree of proof of the facts of causation will be rearranged within the range stated by the Holdings and Summary of Decision of the new judgment.

Statutes referred to

• 민사소송법 제136조, 제202조, 제203조, 제288조, 제290조, 제343조

Decisions referred to

• 대법원 2019. 8. 9. 선고 2019다222140 판결 · Decision ledger
• 대법원 2010. 10. 28. 선고 2008다6755 판결 · Decision ledger

Verification status

The cited provisions (Articles 136, 202, 203, 288, 290, and 343 of the Civil Procedure Act) were compared against the current original texts of the National Law Information Center on October 16, 2026. The cited judgments (Supreme Court Decision 2019Da222140 decided August 9, 2019; Supreme Court Decision 2008Da6755 decided October 28, 2010) were compared against the Holdings, Summary of Decision, and decretal portion of the original judgments on the National Law Information Center, and the full text of the reasons for judgment was not compared.