The case holding that, after the expiration of 58 minutes of the term of validity on the agenda of transaction in the form of a final and conclusive sale application, the offer becomes null and void if the consent is declared;

A. The case reversing the judgment of the court below that, on the ground that, in case where one of the parties who received a written notice of a product transaction proposal containing the purport of the offering to the end of August 8, 1990, in which the term of validity is 18:00 on the same day and delivered to the other party a basic contract for the product transaction with the intent of accepting the offer under the said transaction proposal without any modification, 18:00 on the part of the other party, which stated the essential part of the transaction proposal, is valid, 18:00 on the effective date of the offer, the offer under the transaction proposal is null and void at the end of the last time in which the offer becomes effective, and at the end of that time, it is consistent with the principle of good faith that the offer is still maintained until 58/10

B. The term "pre-trial participation which serves as a ground for the exclusion of a judge" means participation in the final pleadings and the agreement of a judgment, and does not include participation in the previous pleadings or examination of evidence.

Articles 528(1) and 2(1) of the Civil Act; Article 37 subparag. 5 of the Civil Procedure Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 70Da2938 delivered on February 23, 1971 (No. 19 ① citizen 104)

Samsung C&T Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na20779 delivered on May 1, 1992

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the records, the creditor asserted that the time when the contract of this case was concluded was August 3, 1990 or August 7, 1990, and according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized August 8, 1990, which was not asserted at the time of conclusion of the contract as the time of conclusion of the contract. However, in a lawsuit for damages arising from nonperformance of contract, the time of conclusion of the contract is nothing more than an indirect fact. Thus, even if the court acknowledged it differently from the time of the party's assertion, it cannot be said that it goes against the principle of pleading. There is no reason

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since there was no prior agreement between the obligee and the obligor on the terms of sale and purchase of aluminium and no prior to the lapse of eight (8) hours after the lapse of eight (1,270,000 won for each of the above terms and conditions of sale and purchase, and the obligee’s consent was entered on the basis of eight (1,270,000 won for each of the above terms and conditions of sale and purchase) and eight (1,000 won for each of the above terms and conditions, and the obligor’s consent was entered on eight (1,000 won for each of the above terms and conditions of sale and purchase) before the end of eight (8:00 won for each of the above terms and conditions of sale and purchase) and the obligor’s consent was entered on the expiration of eight (1,270,000 won for each of the above terms and conditions, and the obligor’s consent was still entered on the expiration of eight (1,000 won for each of the above terms and conditions of sale and purchase and delivery). On the date of eight (1).

However, even if the records are examined in detail, it is not the final time when 8.8.18.00 on the written agenda of the above transaction becomes null and void due to the passage of that time, but even until the end of the ordinary business on August 8, 200, there is no evidence to recognize that the time of the withdrawal of the government office is merely a formal example of 18.00, which is the time of the withdrawal of the government office, and there is no evidence to support this point, and there is no evidence to support that there is such a practice, and it is difficult to find a reasonable reason to state the time of the withdrawal of the government office in lieu of the time of the ordinary business closure, and therefore, it is difficult to avoid criticism that the court below found the facts without evidence.

In addition, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, since the above transaction proposal is prepared by the debtor in the form of presenting it to the creditor, but it is prepared by the creditor, the 8.8.8.18.00 with the effective term is the final point at which the creditor's subscription is maintained by himself, and the starting point at that point, the offer pursuant to the above transaction proposal becomes invalid by the principle of good faith.

In light of the above, the court below erred in finding facts without any evidence, erroneous interpretation of the parties' expression of intent, or erroneous application of the principle of good faith or lack of sufficient reasons, and thus, it is justified to point this out.

3. On the third ground for appeal

The preceding trial, which is a ground for the exclusion of a judge, refers to the involvement in the final pleading and the agreement of a judgment, and it shall not be included in cases where the participation in the previous pleading or examination of evidence is conducted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 70Da2938, Feb. 23, 1971). Therefore, the theory of lawsuit that examines the objection cannot be accepted as an independent opinion. It is without merit

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 Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)