(b) Effect of non-compliance with an order to submit documents;

B. The purport of Article 320 of the Civil Procedure Act is that, in a case where a party does not comply with the order to submit a document, the court should recognize the allegations of the other party as true, and it does not necessarily mean that the allegations of the other party, which the court intends to prove by the document, are proven

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party, who was employed by the plaintiff as the advertising bureau development member of the defendant company, concluded a credit guarantee contract with the defendant company to compensate for damages to the defendant company by intention or negligence while in office, and registered the establishment of the establishment of the nearest site of this case in order to secure this contract, without any evidence, and determined that the above non-party, on November 1, 1980, did not receive a fixed wage other than 50,000 won per month from the time of entry into the advertising bureau as advertising development member of the defendant company, and was paid 8 through 16 percent of the advertising fee for which he was recruited, on the other hand, he was liable for the advertising fee for the limited amount to be paid directly by the defendant company within one month from the date of publication of the advertising fee, and entered into an advertising contract with the defendant company at the expiration of the period of the registration of establishment of the establishment of the foundation of the above non-party on May 19, 1983.

In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below cannot be a precedent of this case, unlike the case of the party members of the right and wrong theory. Therefore, there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, misunderstanding of legal principles as to the liability of the members of the Advertising Development Board, or violation of the precedents concerning the members of the party.

2. On the second and third grounds for appeal

The court below determined that the above non-party's obligation to pay advertising fees in this case against the defendant cannot be deemed as the price for the goods sold by the merchants under Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act, which set forth the subject of short-term extinctive prescription, and held that the secured debt of the above right to collateral security cannot be deemed as the compensation liability for damages caused by the non-party's tort, and that the period of extinctive prescription has expired since January 30, 1985, which was the time of retirement of the above non-party, the above non-party's retirement, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the secured debt of the above right to collateral security was extinguished by the expiration of the three-year statute of limitations under Article 766 (1) of the Civil Act, not the tort liability due to the mistake of facts or embezzlement of advertising fees against the above non-party's company. The above fact-finding and decision of the court below are correct, and it seems that the above non-party's aforementioned non-party's explanation of temporary appropriation of advertising fees is not a tort.

3. On the fourth ground for appeal

The purport of Article 320 of the Civil Procedure Act is that if a party fails to comply with an order to submit a document, the court should admit the allegations of the other party as true, and it does not necessarily mean that the allegations of the other party about the document are proved by such document, but it is not necessarily a party's opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2490, Feb. 23, 198). Therefore, even if the defendant did not comply with the order to submit a document by the court below, it does not necessarily require the fact of the plaintiff's assertion to be proved by the document. Thus, as seen above, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the secured obligation of the right to collateral security of this case was the obligation under a contract for fidelity guarantee between the plaintiff and the defendant which was concluded on behalf of the other party, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the order to submit a document as alleged in the arguments.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)