In a case where the defendant's reply disputing the plaintiff's assertion was either written or written (negative)

Although the defendant's reply to the purport that denies the plaintiff's claim as to the facts of the cause of the claim did not have made a statement or a statement, it can be viewed that the defendant asserted the plaintiff's claim in accordance with the whole purport of the pleading as stipulated in the proviso of Article 139 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Article 139(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na3927 delivered on April 28, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the records, the defendant 2 submitted a written reply to the court of first instance to the effect that he denies the plaintiff's claim of this case at the court of first instance on September 28, 1979, and did not appear at the date of first instance on October 2, 1979. The court of first instance did not consider the above defendant's claim as stated in the above defendant's written reply at the pleading on the date of first instance, but did not consider the plaintiff's claim as stated in the above defendant's written answer at the pleading on the date of first instance, and the court of first instance did not consider the plaintiff's claim as presented in accordance with the whole purport of the so-called "Article 139 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act," and it can be acknowledged that the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim against the defendant. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to constructive confession, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or failing to exhaust any errors in the rules of evidence, or failing to exhaust any errors in the rules of evidence.

With respect to the second ground:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim of this case on the ground that the non-party's testimony of the non-party witness of the court of first instance corresponding thereto is difficult to believe, and there is no other evidence to recognize it, and there is no error in the rules of evidence, or in the incomplete hearing, there is no reason to believe that the above fact-finding by the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, or in the omission of reasons. The argument is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)