According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below determined that the plaintiff and the non-party 1 shared shares and organized 21 books on June 23, 1990, and the defendant opened the account No. 7 and 8 among them, the defendant did not deposit the account No. 7 with six times for the account No. 8, and 250,000 won each time for the account No. 7, and the plaintiff paid 5,250,000 won to the defendant for the account No. 8, but the non-party 2 did not pay half of the accounts to the plaintiff and directly pay half of the accounts to the plaintiff on January 23, 191 (the court below's decision No. 23, Dec. 23, 1990) and the defendant did not receive the remaining amount of the money from the non-party 2's creditor pursuant to the non-party 1's agreement, and the defendant did not receive the money from the non-party 1,500,0000 won for the plaintiff 200.

However, it is difficult to accept the decision of the court below for the following reasons, which recognized that the plaintiff paid a sum of KRW 2,00,000 to the defendant around January 27, 1991 through the process of evidence cooking as stated in its reasoning, for the following reasons.

According to Gap evidence No. 8-9 (Judgment) and records, the plaintiff and the non-party 1 were not opened in Gangseo-si on January 23, 1991, and the plaintiff et al. paid part of the amount No. 8 to the non-party 2 or paid 2,00,000 won to the defendant on January 27, 1991, although the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 had been convicted of the above facts at the court of the first instance where the case was tried, the non-party 2 had been convicted of the non-party 1's testimony on January 23, 1991. The non-party 1 was also found to have been convicted of the above facts No. 2,50,00 won on the non-party 1, the non-party 2 was found to have been convicted of the non-party 1's testimony on the non-party 1, 200,000 won on the non-party 1's testimony.

The court below, without any explanation as to the grounds for rejecting the factual judgment of the above criminal trial, recognizes the facts opposed to the above facts by the employment evidence. However, all the evidence admitted by the court below is the contents of the testimony of the defendants and the persons concerned such as the fraternity, etc. who were present at the above criminal trial and the statement of the witness of this case, and the above three of the witness was already convicted of the perjury, and even if examining the contents of the evidence, it cannot be said that it does not reach the extent of the reversal of the evidence that there was a factual judgment of the above criminal trial.

In addition, according to the records, the non-party 2 made a consistent confession with the reasons leading up to the perjury with the intention of evading the fraternity upon the request of the plaintiff and the non-party 1 on several occasions (the evidence Nos. 7-16, 30, 8-1, 9, 8-5), and the defendant made a statement that he had no fraternity meeting at ordinary times on January 23, 1991, when he was the principal of the usual-type party, and the stronger who was the leading party did not have a fraternity meeting at ordinary times (the evidence Nos. 8-13), and the seven fraternitys were not paid properly since the previous seven fraternitys were not paid properly, and the defendant was paid the fraternitys more than three times on January 21, 191, and the eight times' meetings were not properly held (the above evidence Nos. 7-13, 24, 27 and 17-27 of the criminal records, etc.).

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the factual judgment in the above criminal trial without any explanation of the reasons, and recognized the facts opposed thereto only by the employment evidence. In this regard, there is an error of incomplete deliberation or a violation of the rules of evidence that affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, there is a reason to point out this issue.

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)