[공장인도][집10(4)민,196]
In the absence of such recognition as a substitute payment contract by duress, the actual cases
According to the purport of the party’s pleading, in a case where circumstances exist that make it difficult to believe that there was such duress as the Plaintiff’s Head at the time when the party’s pleading was prepared, it would be contrary to the empirical rule as to evidence finding the facts of coercion solely by the Plaintiff’s statement, a documentary evidence stating the Plaintiff’s statement, or a documentary evidence stating the Plaintiff’s testimony, or
Article 110 of the Civil Act
Ma-gu
Defendant (Attorney Kang New-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 4294No1167 delivered on May 28, 1962
We reverse the original judgment.
The case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney are as stated in the appellate brief attached in the attached Form, and the plaintiff's answer is as stated in the subsequent written answer.
In the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the first instance court examined the fifth point of the grounds of appeal to the effect that it is unlawful to recognize the facts to the contrary without considering such evidence, although there is any evidence that can be seen as having been achieved not by coercion, but by the delivery of the case at issue, as recognized by the lower court.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the plaintiff rejected the plaintiff's request for payment of 18.70,000 dollars from the defendant's obligation to repay 6.3 million won to the defendant by calculating the welfare of the defendant. Thus, on December 9, 1958, the defendant acknowledged the fact that on the 27th day of the same month, the defendant sent the non-party 1 and 2 to the above brigade and let the plaintiff make intimidation by threatening assault, etc. to the plaintiff, and affixed a signature and seal to the contract (Evidence 1) under which the plaintiff inevitably prepared by the defendant sell the YY to 18.7,00,000 won in exchange for 1870,000,000 won in consideration of the contents of Gap's evidence and the result of the plaintiff's newspaper.
However, upon examining the evidence cited by the court below, there is no evidence to prove that the evidence No. 1 was prepared by the defendant other than the defendant's written statement (Evidence No. 2) stating the plaintiff's results of examination and the plaintiff's statement and the statement No. 3) No. 7 and No. 8 stating the plaintiff's statement, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff was subject to violence and coercion as alleged by the plaintiff when the plaintiff was prepared No. 1, and the remaining evidence No. 1 did not go through the purport that the plaintiff was specialized in the facts of coercion as alleged by the plaintiff, and it is nothing more than the other evidence No. 1's statement that there was a corrected statement in favor of the plaintiff among the items of No. 1's written evidence No. 1's statement that it was difficult to believe that there was violence and coercion as alleged by the plaintiff at the time of preparation of No. 1's statement and statement No. 1's statement.
The original judgment cannot be reversed in light of the above explanation, and the appeal is with merit and related answers are without merit. Therefore, the judgment on the remaining grounds of appeal is omitted. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
The judges of the Supreme Court, both judges (Presiding Judge) and Magyeong, Mag-Jak, the highest leapble leapbal of Red Mags