beta
(영문) 대법원 1962. 4. 18. 선고 4294민상1181 판결

[대여금][집10(2)민,164]

Main Issues

Cases recognized as the fact of the Plaintiff’s repayment of its obligations to the Defendant by lack of evidence, which are against the rules of evidence.

Summary of Judgment

Although a witness borrowed 200,000 won from the plaintiff before the Korean War, and made a statement that there was no money borrowed from the defendant in the witness examination protocol, the testimony of the witness alone recognized the fact of repayment to the defendant by the defendant is not based on evidence but against the rules of evidence.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 393 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff-Appellee

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellant

Defendant

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 60Do1203 delivered on July 18, 1961, Seoul High Court Decision 200Da1203 delivered on July 18, 200

Text

The original judgment shall be reversed.

The case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court.

Reasons

The defendant's grounds of appeal are as shown in the annexed appellate brief ratified by the defendant.

The Second Ground of Appeal

In recognizing the fact that the plaintiff borrowed 200,000 won from the defendant before the monetary reform, the original judgment was admitted as evidence, but according to the witness examination protocol, the witness made a statement only if the witness borrowed 200,000 won from the plaintiff and borrowed money from the defendant before June 25, 200, and there is no statement as to the fact that the plaintiff paid the money borrowed from the defendant, and since there is no statement as to the fact that the plaintiff paid the money borrowed from the defendant, the witness's testimony as the witness cannot be recognized as the fact that the plaintiff paid the defendant with the money borrowed from the defendant, the original judgment is against the rules of evidence, and the original judgment is not based on evidence, and it is not reversed without requiring any judgment on other points.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-ho (Presiding Judge)