[임치백미반환][집15(1)민,017]
Cases of incomplete hearing due to non-exercise of right to clarify the purport of the claim
According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s complaint, the purport of the claim is to claim KRW 115,072 in the case of delivery of 32 in kind and in the case of non-delivery in kind to the Defendant. In the event that there are circumstances, such as the Plaintiff’s claim on the premise that the Defendant arbitrarily sold 32 in the instant case deposited by the Plaintiff to another place on the premise that the Defendant arbitrarily embezzled the 32 in the instant case, which was deposited by the Plaintiff, in accordance with the Plaintiff’s claim, it shall be examined by clarifying whether or not the Plaintiff’s claim for the 32 infinite as a specific object or whether the 0 infinite as a substitute is claimed as a return of the 0 in custody, even if there is no 0 infinite,
Article 126 of the Civil Procedure Act
Plaintiff
Defendant
Daegu High Court Decision 66Na28 delivered on August 11, 1966
We reverse the original judgment.
The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.
The judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s Attorney and the ground of appeal No. 2 by the Defendant’s Counsel;
According to the plaintiff's complaint's statement, the plaintiff's claim is to claim KRW 115,072 for the conversion price into 32 Man's delivery in kind and 32 Man's non-delivery. The plaintiff's claim is consistent on the premise that the defendant arbitrarily sold 100 Man's 32 which was deposited by the plaintiff in another place. Furthermore, the defendant's claim in the fifth oral argument of the court below (196 July 13, 196) embezzled the above Man's above Man's Man's above Man's above Man's embezzlement, so the defendant's claim for the above Man's delivery in kind is maintained on the ground of tort. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the plaintiff's judgment without examining the plaintiff's claim for compensation in kind and without examining the plaintiff's claim for compensation in kind.
Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, who did not make any judgment on the ground of appeal No. 2 and the ground of appeal No. 1 by the defendant, and who participated in the original trial again.
[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-dong (Presiding Judge)