the effect of a promise of payment in kind in order to discharge the obligation due to the liquidation relations of the System.

This section and section 608 of this title shall not apply in the event of a promise of payment in lieu of payment in order to discharge the obligations due to the liquidation relations of the public.

Article 607 of the Civil Act, Article 608 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Da548 delivered on September 22, 1964

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 67Na558, 743 decided June 7, 1968, Seoul High Court Decision 67Na558, 743 decided June 7, 1968

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant’s attorney

In light of the records, we examine the original judgment, and examine the defendant's assertion that the defendant's transfer of ownership to the plaintiff of the real estate was caused by the plaintiff's coercion. Thus, there is no violation of evidence in rejection of the defendant's assertion that the court below's transfer of ownership to the plaintiff of the real estate was caused by the plaintiff's coercion, and there is no reason to argue contrary thereto. In addition, if a promise was made for payment in kind in order to repay the debt incurred by the liquidation relationship of the union, it cannot be viewed as a promise for payment in kind arising from a loan for consumption. Thus, the provisions of Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Code cannot be applied (see Supreme Court Decision 64Da548, Sep. 22, 1964). Thus, the original judgment with the purport above is just

Therefore, the appeal is without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-chul (Presiding Judge)