The case holding that it is consistent with the rule of experience to recognize that the seller knew or could have known the deception made by the introduced person at the time of the conclusion of

If the land owner participated in the conclusion of a trade contract as a seller, and the Nonparty, an individual, was removed from the development restriction zone as to the land, and the permission for the gas station was readily known to the buyer, it would be consistent with the empirical rules to recognize that the land seller knew or could have known the said Nonparty’s deception.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 390 of the Civil Act

Kim Jong-Un Law Office, Attorneys Park Byung-il et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant

Attorney Nam-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 89Na18940 delivered on August 17, 1989

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's testimony of Gap evidence 6-3, No. 7-9, No. 10, 118, and No. 18 of the first instance court on the ground that when the plaintiff introduced the non-party Kim Il-sung (the non-party in the first instance trial; hereinafter the non-party), he concluded a sales contract to purchase approximately 300 won of the land of this case from the defendant 520,000, an aggregate of KRW 156,000,000, the non-party knew that the non-party could easily obtain gas station permission since the land of this case is expected to be released from the development restriction zone, and that the plaintiff's horse would be anticipated to use the non-party's horse as the gas station site, and that the non-party could expect and purchase profits from the increase in land price when the land of this case was released from the development restriction zone of the second instance. However, the court below rejected the above evidence as to the non-party's deception of the plaintiff or the non-party.

However, according to the records, at the court of first instance, five persons, including the plaintiff, the defendant, the non-party witness name, the non-party 1, and the non-party 1, were present at the time of concluding the contract of this case at the court of first instance, and the non-party 1, the non-party 0 was present at the daily newspaper, the nature green belt was released, so it is easy to permit the gas station. At the end, the defendant was sold to the plaintiff, and the money was sold to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was the non-party 1, and the non-party 0 was the non-party 1, and the non-party 1, the non-party 0 was the non-party 1, who did not know that the restricted area for development was the defendant at the time of entering the contract of this case at the time of the non-party 0's expiration of the contract of this case, and the non-party 1, who did not enter the proviso to the contract of this case at the time of the non-party 1's expiration of the contract of this case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in finding facts against the rules of evidence, and this affected the judgment, which points out this issue is reasonable.

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 Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)