[약속어음금][집2(6)민,018]
The impact of the omission of judgment on the illegality and the result of judgment
Even though there was no illegality in the judgment of the court of the second instance that omitted the defendant's decision on the defense, there was no evidence to prove the facts of the defense, so if the defense is rejected, the court of the second instance did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the judgment should not
Articles 396 and 384 of the Civil Procedure Act
Relocation
The representative of the Jeju Alcoholic Industries Co., Ltd., the Dominium
Seoul District Court of the first instance, the Seoul High Court of the second instance, 54 civilian 466 delivered on February 5, 1955
The final appeal is dismissed.
Costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the defendant company borrowed 30,000,000,000 won from the Kim Jong-hwan in the short-term 4287 to the Kim Jong-hwan, and the defendant company delivered to the non-party a promissory note for the non-party 2,000,000 won during the period to the non-party 1.8,000 won, so the defendant company is exempted from the duty to respond to the plaintiff's claim because it has already paid the amount to the non-party 180,000,000 won under a separate contract between Kim Jong-hwan, and the relationship between the defendant company and the non-party Kim Jong-tae and the non-party 1,000 won, and it was evident by the oral statement of the date of January 6, 4288. However, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the non-party 1's request for the investigation of evidence against the plaintiff's bad faith as the defendant's witness's domicile.
However, according to the examination attached to the defendant's evidence at the court below as to the plaintiff's argument in the lawsuit, since it is clear that the defendant's purpose of proving the defendant's defense as to "the plaintiff's bad faith acquisition of the plaintiff in the lawsuit" has not been indicated, the witness can reverse the purport of the defendant's defense not being applied as evidence for the defendant's defense. Thus, the witness cannot be a witness of the defendant's defense as to the defendant's defense, such as the plaintiff's argument, and there is no reason to discuss the difference, and according to the second oral argument at the court below as to the defendant's defense as to so-called so-called so-called "the defendant's defense was submitted in the court below, even though it was obvious that the defendant submitted the defense at the court below's second oral argument at the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant's defense was not known, and there is an error of law in the decision of the court below as to his reasons. In other words, according to the records, it is not necessary to reverse the defendant's defense.
Therefore, the appeal of this case is deemed to be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.
Justices Kim Jong-il (Presiding Justice) Acting Justice Kim Jae-ho on the present allotment of Kim Dong-dong