The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground of illegality for which the parties did not have an opportunity to state their opinions;

In light of the process of litigation and the process of trial, where the defendant's argument was presented as to the defect in the statement stated in the place of issuance of promissory notes or the name of the issuer, but the plaintiff was clearly found to have been abandoned this point, the case reversing the judgment of the court below which dismissed the plaintiff's claim without giving such opportunity, on the ground that the court below should have given the plaintiff an opportunity to state his opinion on this point when intending to consider this point as the basis of the judgment, based on the defendant's argument as to the defect in the statement in the

Article 126(4) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 1 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

Supreme Court Decision 94Da8761 delivered on June 10, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1933) Supreme Court Decision 94Da17109 delivered on October 21, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3070) Supreme Court Decision 95Da15575 delivered on August 22, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3249)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 94Na7064 delivered on April 14, 1995

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the defendant issued 10,00,000 won at par value on September 25, 1992, 31, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the payment date, the 200,00,000, 31 December 31, 1992, 192, 200, 300, 200, 200, 300, 200, 200, 200, 300, 1992, and 1 Promissory Notes, which are currently held by the plaintiff, after the refusal of payment, 30,000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 3000,0000,000,000,000,000,000

2. However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

First of all, according to the record, the proceedings of the instant lawsuit are organized and reviewed as follows.

On May 6, 1994, the first instance court stated that the issue date of the bill is Seoul Special Metropolitan City. Accordingly, the defendant during the first instance court's pleading that the bill was stolen and delivered to the plaintiff by the non-party 1, and that the bill was acquired in bad faith by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's claim is groundless since the bill was not continuous endorsement. The first instance court rejected all the defendant's claim and decided in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant filed an appeal against it, and submitted it to the court below on May 6, 1994, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim that "the promissory note issued by the plaintiff is not issued, and it is not effective due to lack of the requirements for the bill", and the defendant stated that the bill was issued by the non-party 1, and that the bill was issued to the non-party 2, and that it was acquired in bad faith. The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim as to whether the bill was issued and the right to the bill was not acquired as a defense after the second instance court's pleading.

3. The court shall give the parties an opportunity to state their opinions with respect to legal matters which are deemed to be clear between the parties (Article 126(4) of the Civil Procedure Act).

In light of the above process or the trial process of the lawsuit in this case, as to the defects in the statement stated in the place of issuance or the name of the issuer, there was the defendant's assertion as above, but the plaintiff is deemed to have neglected this point clearly. Therefore, if the court below intends to consider this point as the basis of the trial by admitting the defendant's argument as to the defects in the statement in the place of issuance, it should have the plaintiff given an opportunity to state his opinion on this point. Nevertheless, the court below did not reach this point, and based on the judgment of the court below, based on the issue as to whether the plaintiff is deemed to have been clearly excessive, the claim was dismissed for the reason that the plaintiff was not clearly predicted by the party, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The appeal pointing this out is with merit.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)