The legitimacy of rejecting the claim without a demand for proof, because the plaintiff who was judged in favor of the court in the first instance due to an constructive confession was not present at the first date for pleading of the appellate court.

If the plaintiff who was judged in favor of the court of first instance did not appear at the date of the first pleading in the appellate court and denies the plaintiff's assertion, and if the plaintiff attached materials proving the facts of his argument to the complaint, the court below should explain whether the above documents, etc. are submitted as evidence to the plaintiff and examine and determine the legitimacy of the argument. However, the court below erred in the misapprehension of law and incomplete deliberation that the plaintiff did not appear on the first date of pleading and rejected the claim on the ground that there was no proof of the facts of the assertion.

Articles 126 and 393 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da398 Decided June 10, 1969

Korea Guarantee Insurance Corporation

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 85Na449 delivered on August 20, 1985

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records and the judgment of the court below, the non-party co-defendants of the court of first instance agreed to pay interest at 19% per annum from the date of payment of the above insurance amount and 19% per annum from the date of payment of the above insurance amount, and the defendant did not appear at the court of first instance because the non-party did not collect earth and stones in the above forest and recover therefrom, and the plaintiff did not present at the court of first instance to the court of first instance to secure the deposit of damaged forest funds. The court below asserted that the non-party did not clearly claim the payment of the insurance money of this case for the non-indicted 1, 1983, 253, 500, and the insurance period was from March 1, 1981 to December 31 of the same year, and that the non-party did not clearly claim the payment of the insurance money of this case for the non-indicted 1, 1983, 2530, which is a joint and several surety of the court of first instance.

However, the court should call attention to prove the facts of the dispute requiring proof if the party with the burden of proof fails to prove it due to negligence or misunderstanding.

According to the records, the plaintiff attached the letter of consent of the respondent (record 12 pages) and the certificate of personal seal impression (record 14 pages) of the defendant's name to the purport of proving the facts alleged in the complaint of this case, and according to the contents of the statement, the plaintiff's assertion can be acknowledged. Thus, the court below should have tried and decided the plaintiff's right of reply by ordering the plaintiff to prove the above documents, etc. as evidence or not. However, the court below's failure to attend the court of first instance merely because the plaintiff did not appear on the date for pleading of the court of first instance and did not prove the facts alleged in the plaintiff's assertion, and thus rejected the plaintiff's claim. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of law and incomplete deliberation.

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

Justices Kang Jin-young (Presiding Justice)