[약속어음금][집10(2)민,298]
Certification of the fact that the disposal document and its entries are legal acts;
If there is no dispute between the parties on the establishment of a disposal document, the court should recognize the existence and contents of the declaration by the contents of the statement unless there is any counter-proof.
Park Nam-nam,
Mack and Hack
Seoul High Court Decision 60Do1066 delivered on July 11, 1961, Seoul High Court Decision 200Da10666 delivered on July 11, 200
The defendant's appeal reversed the original judgment and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
The incidental appeal shall be dismissed, and the incidental appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
According to the court below's decision on the ground of appeal No. 4 of the defendant's agent's ground of appeal No. 4 stated in the annexed appeal No. 5, the court below agreed to pay the amount of this bill to the defendant's agent as the amount of the bill of exchange in the U.S. mine, and there is no fact that the amount of the bill of exchange has been paid later. "No. 5 shall be paid with the bill of exchange" as to the defense, since the statement of No. 5 and the testimony of the court below's witness Byung-kick-kick's ground of appeal No.
However, unless there is any dispute between the parties, the court should recognize the existence and contents of the declaration of intention by the contents of the statement unless there is any counter-proof. Therefore, it cannot be said that the court below's decision that the dispositive document did not interfere with the formation of the dispositive document and that the dispositive document No. 5 must not be taken completely without any counter-proof.
Therefore, without any explanation on other grounds of appeal, the original judgment is reversed pursuant to Article 406(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Then, in light of the reasons for the dismissal of the plaintiff's agent stated in the attached Form No. 4, the plaintiffs asserted that the defendant is obligated to perform the procedure for exchange under the name of 800 shares of the Young Industrial Co., Ltd., the defendant is not a major fact to seek exchange of shares in whose name the plaintiff's name is, and thus, the facts that are alleged indirectly through the method of evidence can also be considered. Thus, the defendant's assertion that 100 shares of the shares to be changed under subparagraph 4 are included in the name of 10 shares among the shares to be changed under the name of 80 shares of the Young Industrial Co., Ltd. can not be said to have
In addition, according to the contents of each evidence in the court below, not only the gambling money but also the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have a duty to change the name of the shares in this case, but also the fact that the obligation to return the shares in the name of the acquiring company was not proved by the court below, so the original judgment is not sufficient.
In addition, according to the records, the defendant asserts the exchange of the name and the transfer on the premise that the share certificates of a corporation in the field of the lawsuit are issued, and the plaintiff does not dispute the absence of the obligation to exchange the name and does not clearly dispute the issue of whether or not to issue the share certificates, so it can be viewed that the original judgment has led to confession. Therefore, it is obvious that the original judgment recognizes the defendant's defense to that purport, so there is no illegality such as the theory of lawsuit
Therefore, Article 400, Article 89, and Article 95 of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply to an incidental appeal and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) the last leapon interference