The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that it was against the rules of evidence that accepting the claim of the person who is merely an agent to receive the real estate purchase price was erroneous as the seller of the

The case reversing the original judgment which accepted the claim of the person who is merely an agent authorized to receive the purchase price of real estate by mistake as the seller of the real estate, was reversed in violation of the rules of evidence.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

The debtor

Daegu District Court Decision 84Na725 delivered on November 1, 1985

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-applicant 1 entered into a written contract with the effect that the non-applicant 1 would purchase the apartment of this case after completion of construction of the apartment of this case 207 under the boiler construction cost of the non-applicant 1, May 19, 1981, and the non-applicant 1 would have the obligation to purchase the apartment of this case after completion of construction of the apartment of this case. The obligee sold the apartment of this case at KRW 11 million to the obligor on May 21, 1981, and the above purchaser of the apartment of this case sold the apartment of this case at KRW 11,00,000,000 to the obligee and the obligee as the non-applicant 1 and the obligee were introduced, and the obligee entered the name of the receipt issued by the obligor and the obligee as the obligee, and the remaining non-applicant 1,000,000,0000 won, after completion of the registration of the ownership transfer under the above non-applicant 1,000,0.1.

However, according to the evidence No. 6 of the court below's evidence No. 1, the apartment sales contract of this case was sold to the non-applicant No. 1, 1981, May 19, 1981, and evidence No. 5 (real estate sales contract) stated that the above apartment sales contract was concluded between the non-applicant No. 1 and the debtor No. 1, and all of the liabilities for the apartment are stated as the above non-applicant No. 8-1, 2, and 3 (each receipt). According to evidence No. 7 of this case's evidence No. 1, it is hard to view that the above non-applicant No. 1 and the non-applicant No. 7 were the non-applicant No. 1 and the non-applicant No. 1 were the non-applicant No. 1 and the non-applicant No. 1 were the non-applicant No. 1 and the non-applicant No. 3 were the non-applicant No. 1 and the non-party No. 1 were the non-applicant No. 1's. 1 and the non-party No. 1 were the defendant's. 1 and the non-appellant.

Thus, although the obligee is merely an agent entrusted with the authority to receive the above apartment price for the obligor non-applicant 1, and thus does not have the authority to directly claim the payment of the remaining amount, the court below's decision which accepted the obligee's claim under the premise that the obligee is the seller who sells the apartment in this case to the obligor based on the evidence unrefilled in the above mentioned reasoning shall be erroneous for misconception of facts against the rules of evidence, and this constitutes grounds for reversal under Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

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

Justices Yoon In-bok (Presiding Justice)