The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was an error of law such as misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence.

The case holding that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles by misunderstanding facts or by erroneously interpreting the intention of the parties due to a mistake in the determination of value of evidence in the fact-finding that the creditor accepted the assumption of obligation with immunity

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 453 of the Civil Act

Attorney Lee Jong-hoon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee-Appellant] Han Jae-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 88Na41127 decided May 17, 1989

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below decided that the above non-party 2's debt acquisition of the above non-party 1's loan and the above non-party 2's debt acquisition of the above non-party 1's debt amount to the above non-party 1's above non-party 1's debt acquisition of the above non-party 1's loan and the above non-party 2's debt acquisition of the above non-party 1's debt amount to the above non-party 1's above non-party 8's debt acquisition of the non-party 1's debt amount to the above non-party 1's above non-party 1's debt acquisition of the non-party 2's debt amount to the above non-party 1's above non-party 1's debt acquisition of the non-party 2's debt amount to the above non-party 1's above non-party 1's debt acquisition of the non-party 2's debt amount to the above non-party 2's debt acquisition of the defendant 1's debt amount to the non-party 2's debt.

However, according to the records, in a case where the non-party 2 transferred the defendant company to the non-party 2 without sufficient funds to repay the principal of the loan to the plaintiff 80,000,000 and interest thereon, the non-party 2's loan continues to work as the representative director of the defendant company even after the transfer and acquisition, and the above non-party 2 did not easily consent to the non-party 2's discharge of the above obligation against the plaintiff. According to the above evidence No. 3-1, No. 4-1, and No. 2, the above non-party 2's transfer of the above obligation to the defendant company to the non-party 2, and the non-party 2's transfer of the above obligation to the defendant company to the non-party 2, the court below did not have any error in the law regarding the non-party 2's delivery of the above obligation to the non-party 1 as the non-party 2's delivery of the above obligation to the plaintiff 1 as the non-party 2's debt 1.

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

Justices Kim Chang-ju (Presiding Justice)