The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The so-called "company during the process of incorporation" is not a concept specified in the Commercial Act, but a relationship between the rights and duties acquired or borne by the promoters by acts necessary for the establishment of the company at the same time as the establishment of the company belongs to the company which is to be established under the conditions of cancellation (in fact, it belongs to the company which will be established under the conditions of cancellation, and it will belong to the company which will be established under the conditions of suspension as a condition of cancellation, formally, the same fact as its incorporation belongs to the promoters under the conditions of suspension). As such, the theory of lawsuit in the original judgment was clearly stated in the evidence adopted by the non-party 1 and the non-party 6 to the effect that the contract was concluded for the establishment of the company and the non-party 1, which was not established under the condition that the non-party 1 was not established under the condition that the contract was established under the condition that the non-party 1 was established under the condition that the non-party 1 was established under the condition that the non-party 1 was not established under the above contract established.

The third and fourth points of the Dong shall be examined.

According to the original judgment, the court below determined that the defendant company prepared the articles of incorporation pursuant to the evidence No. 4-1, 2, 3, and 10 of the evidence No. 4-1, 5-1, and the testimony of the non-party No. 2, the non-party No. 3, the non-party No. 1, and the non-party No. 4, which he adopted by the court below, around July 19, 1965, and the whole purport of the parties' arguments, and it was clear that the establishment of the company was completed at the end of December 27, 1967 when the establishment was completed, and that there was no violation of the rules of evidence No. 4-1 and No. 7-1, and that there was no obvious error in the decision that the non-party No. 9-2 did not have any influence on the establishment of the company by comparing the above facts with the defendant's opinion that the non-party No. 4 and the non-party No. 7-party No. 2 did not have any legal effect on the establishment of the company's. 9.

The five and six points in the Dong shall be examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the non-party 2 transferred 1.3 million won in excess of 1.5 million won and 1.55 billion won in excess of 5 automobile assembly price in wartime according to the automobile association agreement, to the plaintiff, and even if according to the plaintiff's assertion or the testimony of the non-party 2 by the witness non-party 5, it is presumed that the defendant company did not have to examine and determine whether the above obligation remains remaining, and the defendant company did not have any claim other than the above assigned obligation. In addition, in light of the purport of the dispute over the defendant company's defense in this case, it was a circumstance to deny the plaintiff's claim, and it was an independent claim for damages or its exercise of the right to claim damages, and the judgment of the court below did not err in the conclusion of the judgment of the court below since it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the above non-party 2's right to claim damages.

Therefore, according to the unanimous opinion of all participating judges, it is decided in accordance with Articles 400, 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) and Ma-dong B-Jed Han-gu