[가옥명도][집17(2)민,195]
Cases in which the court's failure to perform its duty of explanation was found to be erroneous in incomplete hearing.
The court's decision was made without giving the defendant an opportunity to supplement the deficiency of the assertion by the name of the person who is not the defendant, and the court's decision was erroneous in failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.
Article 126 of the Civil Procedure Act
Plaintiff 1 and one other
Defendant
Gwangju District Court Decision 68Na153 delivered on February 26, 1969
We reverse the original judgment.
The case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Gwangju District Court.
The defendant's appeal is examined.
According to the records, the defendant agreed to exchange the land owned by the defendant with the house owned by the defendant in the village, such as the house owned by the defendant, on condition that the defendant cultivated as a member of the clan, and the house owned by the defendant was removed from the house owned by the defendant, without implementing the above agreement, and arbitrarily changed the house owned by the defendant, and collected the house. The plaintiffs' claim for the name of the house was unjust, and at the same time, submitted the evidence of the above argument Nos. 1 through 4, and the contents of the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 cannot be seen as the defendant's above assertion. Thus, the court below rejected the defendant's above assertion on the ground that the defendant's above assertion is not a party to the defendant's argument, but it did not reach the purport of the whole argument of the defendant's argument, and the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the defendant's duty of exchange with the above agreement, but it did not err in the misapprehension of the defendant's right to use the house under the name of the defendant.
Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)