Open Decision Ledger · Civil procedure & enforcement
Whether the facts stated in the reasons for a civil judgment in another case may be treated as a notorious fact
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Aug. 9, 2019, 2019Da222140 (judgment)
Case name: 양수금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May the facts appearing in the reasons for a final and conclusive civil judgment between the defendant and a third party be treated as a notorious fact and admitted without evidence?
Holding
One cannot go beyond the existence of a final and conclusive judgment and treat even the facts constituting the reasons for that judgment as a notorious fact. The court below, which treated the facts found in the judgment of another court below the appellate level — facts that had neither been submitted as evidence nor asserted — as a notorious fact, misunderstood the legal principle.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
피고와 제3자 사이에 있었던 민사소송의 확정판결의 존재를 넘어서 그 판결의 이유를 구성하는 사실관계들까지 법원에 현저한 사실로 볼 수는 없다.
Unofficial English translation
Beyond the existence of a final and conclusive judgment in a civil action between the defendant and a third party, the facts constituting the reasons for that judgment cannot be regarded as facts obvious to the court.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 광주지방법원 본원 합의부에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the collegiate panel of the Gwangju District Court main court.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Read from the decision
이를 ‘법원에 현저한 사실’로 본 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
A case in which the court below's determination treating these as 'facts obvious to the court' was held to entail a misapprehension of legal principles
Factors
- 판결의 이유를 구성하는 사실관계들까지
- 확정된 관련 민사사건의 판결에서 인정된 사실은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 유력한 증거가 되지만
- 다른 하급심판결의 판결문 등이 증거로 제출된 적이 없고
- 당사자들도 이에 관하여 주장한 바가 없음에도
Unofficial English translation
• even the facts constituting the reasons for the judgment,
• the facts found in the judgment of the related civil case that has become final and conclusive become persuasive evidence unless there are special circumstances,
• the written judgment of the other judgment of a lower court, etc. had never been submitted as evidence,
• and even though the parties had never made allegations in that regard,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2010. 1. 14. 선고 2009다69531 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2009Da69531 decided January 14, 2010
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2010. 1. 14. 선고 2009다69531 판결, 대법원 2018. 8. 30. 선고 2016다46338, 46345 판결(공2018하, 1902)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where a judgment in another case has been submitted as evidence but the opposing party disputes the facts appearing in the reasons therefor, to what extent must the court state reasonable grounds in order to reject that finding of fact?
If the Supreme Court renders a different holding concerning the scope of notorious facts, or if Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act is amended, this reading will be re-examined.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
As compared with an independent reading by a different AI line (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the primary reading, 7 of the 8 axes agreed, and the readings diverged on the eighth axis (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where a judgment in another case has been submitted as evidence but the opposing party disputes the facts appearing in the reasons therefor, to what extent must the court state reasonable grounds in order to reject that finding of fact?” vs Independent “What, specifically, are the special circumstances that would permit rejection of that finding of fact where the relevant final and conclusive judgment has been submitted as evidence?”
The primary reading asks about the degree of explanation of reasons needed when rejecting the findings of fact in the relevant judgment, whereas the independent reading asks about the specific circumstances that permit rejection.
피고와 제3자 사이에 있었던 민사소송의 확정판결의 존재를 넘어서 그 판결의 이유를 구성하는 사실관계들까지 법원에 현저한 사실로 볼 수는 없다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The court below admitted, without more, the facts found in the reasons for Gwangju High Court Judgment 2003Na8816 concerning the circumstances under which the non-party person established the defendant company, and the facts found in the reasons for Gwangju District Court, Mokpo Branch Judgment 2001Gahap1664 and Gwangju High Court Judgment 2003Na416 concerning whether meetings of the defendant company's board of directors were held, and treated them as facts that are notorious to this Court.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court, relying on the fact that the above judgments had never been submitted as evidence in the first instance or in the court below and that the parties had made no assertion in that regard, held that the court below had misunderstood the legal principle concerning notorious facts and had adjudicated on the basis of the facts of judgments that had not been examined. It omitted any determination on the remaining grounds for final appeal and reversed and remanded the judgment of the court below.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the judgment in another case has been submitted as documentary evidence in the lawsuit at hand and has been examined as evidence
- Where a party itself asserts or admits the facts found in another judgment
- Where only the existence of the final and conclusive judgment itself, and not the facts appearing in the reasons for the judgment, is at issue
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, first confirm whether the judgment in question was submitted to the Records as evidence and whether the parties invoked those facts at oral argument.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 피고와 제3자 사이에 있었던 민사소송의 확정판결의 존재를 넘어서 판결의 이유를 구성하는 사실관계들까지 법원에 현저한 사실로 볼 수 있는지 여부(소극) [2] 원심이 다른 하급심판결의 이유 중 일부 사실관계에 관한 인정 사실을 그대로 인정하면서, 위 사정들이 ‘이 법원에 현저한 사실’이라고 본 사안에서, 당해 재판의 제1심 및 원심에서 다른 하급심판결의 판결문 등이 증거로 제출된 적이 없고, 당사자들도 이에 관하여 주장한 바가 없음에도 이를 ‘법원에 현저한 사실’로 본 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, beyond the existence of a final and conclusive judgment in a civil action between the defendant and a third party, the facts constituting the reasons for the judgment may also be regarded as facts obvious to the court (negative) [2] A case in which, where the court below accepted as they were the facts found in part of the reasons of another judgment of a lower court and regarded those circumstances as 'facts obvious to this court,' it was held that the court below's determination treating these as 'facts obvious to the court' entailed a misapprehension of legal principles, since the written judgment of the other judgment of a lower court, etc. had never been submitted as evidence at the courts of first instance and below of the trial at issue, and the parties had never made allegations in that regard
Summary of the holding
[1] 피고와 제3자 사이에 있었던 민사소송의 확정판결의 존재를 넘어서 그 판결의 이유를 구성하는 사실관계들까지 법원에 현저한 사실로 볼 수는 없다. 민사재판에 있어서 이미 확정된 관련 민사사건의 판결에서 인정된 사실은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 유력한 증거가 되지만, 당해 민사재판에서 제출된 다른 증거 내용에 비추어 확정된 관련 민사사건 판결의 사실인정을 그대로 채용하기 어려운 경우에는 합리적인 이유를 설시하여 이를 배척할 수 있다는 법리도 그와 같이 확정된 민사판결 이유 중의 사실관계가 현저한 사실에 해당하지 않음을 전제로 한 것이다. [2] 원심이 다른 하급심판결의 이유 중 일부 사실관계에 관한 인정 사실을 그대로 인정하면서, 위 사정들이 ‘이 법원에 현저한 사실’이라고 본 사안에서, 당해 재판의 제1심 및 원심에서 다른 하급심판결의 판결문 등이 증거로 제출된 적이 없고, 당사자들도 이에 관하여 주장한 바가 없음에도 이를 ‘법원에 현저한 사실’로 본 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 광주지방법원 본원 합의부에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the collegiate panel of the Gwangju District Court main court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민사소송법 제203조, 제288조 [2] 민사소송법 제203조, 제288조
Read 2026-10-16 · Cross-read 2026-10-16. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger