Although the original judgment was entered in an agreement to process the plaintiff from May 21, 1962 to May 6, 1963 as stated in its reasoning and received 36 copies of receipts which are serial numbers as stated in its reasoning, only 12 copies among them shall be delivered to the plaintiff, and the remaining 24 copies shall not be yet delivered, as the witness Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7 and the witness non-party 1's testimony of the first instance court (as of July 6, 1964), the above witness's testimony (as of July 7, 1964), and the above witness Gap evidence Nos. 7, which was issued to the non-party 1, 1963, which was issued to the non-party 2, and the above non-party 2, which was issued to the non-party 3's testimony, should not be found to have been issued to the non-party 1, 1963. The above non-party 2, who had no right to reply to the plaintiff's testimony.

The second ground for appeal is examined.

Article 320 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the court shall recognize that the party who is obligated to submit a different method of Article 317 of the other party's application is well-grounded, and if the party fails to comply with it without any justifiable reason, the court shall recognize that the other party's argument about the formation and content of the document is true. According to the records, the contents of the plaintiff's application for the order to submit the document (Records 92, 93, 94) shall be indicated in this case without stating the matters stated therein, namely, the purport of the document, namely, the document, the serial numbers stated in the original receipt book are indicated by each right, and it is only necessary to prove that the party has already collected 1,275,402 won or more adjusted by presentation of the original receipt book or duplicate, and the court of first instance has also accepted the above entries in the document without any justifiable reason that the defendant did not comply with the legal principles as to the remaining amount of the order to submit the document, and it is evident that the defendant did not comply with such order without any justifiable reason.

Therefore, in the grounds of appeal, we decide to omit the judgment on other arguments and reverse the original judgment based on the above-mentioned points. It is so decided as per Disposition in accordance with Articles 400 and 406 of the Civil Procedure Act according to the unanimous opinion of all participating judges.

Judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)