Receipt of a different amount of receipt by the recipient and separate evidence;

Even a defect repair receipt of the same amount shall not be deemed the same evidence if it is deemed that the recipient was separately paid.

Articles 263 and 186 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Young-jin General Construction Company

Seoul High Court Decision 83Na838 delivered on November 11, 1983

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant regarding 300,000 won defect deposit shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed above are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 1.

According to the records, as to the plaintiff's claim to the defendant for the return of KRW 1,300,000 deposited as defect security deposit out of the construction cost of this case, the defendant asserted that it should be deducted from the above claim amount, since the defendant paid KRW 600,000 to the defect repair of the windows and furniture constructed by the plaintiff.

In this regard, according to the statements in Eul evidence 8-1 and 2 and the testimony of non-party 1 of the court below, the court below rejected only 300,000 won among the defendant's defense, since it was not enough to recognize the above defendant's defense, since there were defects in the ○○ apartment 2 and 304, constructed by the plaintiff, and the defendant paid 300,000 won for the 300,000 won for the 300,000 won for the 300,000 won for the 2, 304, and 300,000 won for the 300,000 won for the 300,000 won for the 30,000 won for the 30,000 won for the 30,000 won for the 30,000 won for the 7th of the evidence Eul.

However, in light of the contents of No. 8-1, No. 8-2, 300,00 won of the defect repair stated in the judgment below, it is evident that it was related to the original construction, such as the replacement of the living room mold under 304, 2, and 304, and it was paid by the method of deducting from the balance of the purchase price to Nonparty 2, who is the purchaser of the house. Meanwhile, in comparison with the above evidence No. 7-6, No. 7, the court below did not exclude the contents of No. 5 of the evidence No. 7, which is the same evidence concerning the defect repair under 304, 300,00 won, stated in the evidence No. 7-5 of the evidence No. 7, the defect repair amount of “300,000 won” was paid to Nonparty 3 as a whole together with the other defect repair amount of the above 8-1,300,000 won which was paid separately from the above evidence No. 50-2, as stated in the above evidence No. 8-2.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below on the defect repair amount is erroneous in the misunderstanding of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment, and it constitutes the ground for reversal of Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3.

Examining each evidence including evidence No. 3 employed by the court below in light of the records, it is sufficiently recognized that the establishment of the additional construction contract for the production of a new warrant, etc. between the original and the defendant as the time of original judgment, and there is no violation of the rule of experience such as theory of lawsuit in the process of evidence preparation, and there is no violation of the rule of experience such as theory of lawsuit, and there is no violation of the rule of experience such as theory of lawsuit.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant regarding the defect repair amount of 300,000 won is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, and the remaining appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal as to this part of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)