According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff was engaged in the business of issuing the above 10 tons of raw rubber sales offer, and the defendant was registered on the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy pursuant to the Trading Business Act, and the defendant received 200 tons of raw rubber sales offer from the plaintiff on January 29, 1974. According to the evidence of the court below's adoption, if Korean consumers import rubber, which is the item of import from the head of foreign exchange banks, import rubber export export contract, were imported from rubber export, the plaintiff was not issued under the above 10 tons of raw rubber sales offer, and then the plaintiff was issued under the above 10th of the 1st of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 1st of the 1st of the 2th of the th of the 2th of the 2th of the import.

However, the court below decided that the plaintiff's request for the issuance of the above export rubber on behalf of the above export trader was just because the above export rubber was signed between the plaintiff and the defendant on January 29, 1974 on the basis of the above import contract as stated in the judgment of the court below, and on the premise that the above export rubber sales contract was concluded again between the plaintiff and the defendant on the basis of the above import contract (the same terms as the raw rubber import contract between the plaintiff and the defendant) and the above export rubber sales contract was concluded, the plaintiff notified the defendant of the cancellation of the above export rubber sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant on the ground that the above export rubber sales contract was concluded on behalf of the above export trader, and the plaintiff's request for the issuance of the above export rubber sales contract was made on behalf of the above exporter and the above importer on behalf of the above import seller on behalf of the defendant, and the plaintiff should not be viewed as a satisfyer's duty to issue the above export rubber sales contract, and the plaintiff's agreement should not be viewed as a sales contract with the above import seller's duty.

Therefore, the court below's decision which accepted the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the effect of this case's rubber import contract which the plaintiff participated does not extend to the above export, and the plaintiff and the defendant considered as the party to whom the contract was effective, and that the contract was concluded again between the plaintiff and the above export, and thus, the court below's decision which accepted the plaintiff's claim on this premise shall be deemed to have committed an incomplete hearing or a violation of the rules of evidence, or a violation of the rules of evidence as to the circumstances for which this case's contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant beyond the above legal status

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yu Tae-hee (Presiding Justice)