Where testimony of a witness who has made a statement in conflict with each other is adopted as evidence and it is not clear which part of the witness's testimony has been rejected and which part of the witness's testimony has been adopted, the case holding that there is a violation of insufficient explanation of reasons.

If testimony of a witness who has made a statement in conflict with each other is adopted as evidence and it is not clear which part of the witness's testimony has been rejected and which part of the witness's testimony has been adopted, the reason explanation is inconsistent with insufficient reasons.

Article 394(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act

People’s Republic of Korea

Dried houses

Seoul High Court Decision 62Na177 delivered on February 13, 1963, Decision 62Na177 delivered on February 13, 1963

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

As to ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s agent

In light of the witness testimony of the first instance court and evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 as reasons, the original judgment calculated on or around August 1961, it was calculated that the defendant's obligation to the plaintiff reaches 289,000 won as a result of the calculation of the obligation relationship between the original defendant around August 1961. However, even if the defendant had been in existence at the time of home, two separate accounts are in progress in addition to the three separate accounts belonging to the claim, so it is not clear in the original judgment that the defendant's obligation to the plaintiff cannot be determined as the total amount of the plaintiff's claim. However, if the defendant's obligation to the plaintiff was established on or around August 1961, it is not sufficient to conclude that the defendant's obligation to the plaintiff was in violation of the first instance judgment's duty to the plaintiff's original judgment and the first instance judgment's obligation to the defendant's 289,000 won, and it is not sufficient to conclude that the defendant's obligation to the plaintiff's claim was unlawful.

Justices Lee B-ho (Presiding Justice)