The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 136(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “The presiding judge may ask the parties questions, and urge them to testify, on the factual or legal matters in order to clarify the litigation relations.” Article 136(4) provides, “The court shall give the parties an opportunity to state their opinions on the legal matters which the parties have deemed to be excessive.”

Therefore, in a case where the parties concerned have no explicit dispute as to matters which may be proved due to negligence or misunderstanding, or which would be an issue, the court shall request explanation and urge verification. If the court seeks to determine the propriety of a claim on the grounds of a legal point of view that the parties could not be aware of or could not have anticipated, the court shall give the parties an opportunity to state their opinions regarding the legal point of view, and if the court seeks to determine the propriety of the claim on the grounds of a legal point of view that the parties could not have known at all or anticipated, it would have committed an error that the parties did not properly perform their duty of explanation because they failed to perform their duty of explanation and failed to hear (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da37185, Jan. 26, 2006; 2006Da50338, Sept. 11, 2008; 2006Da50338, Feb. 2, 2008).