Supplementary evidence of the result of the party examination;

The result of the party examination alone cannot recognize the principal facts alleged by the party.

Articles 187 and 339 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Meu95 Decided June 14, 1983

Plaintiff

Attorney Lee Young-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 84Na2390 delivered on March 3, 1986

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

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

The facts established by the court below are as follows. In other words, the defendant purchased the above non-party 1's share in the non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 8's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 4'

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance, which dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim seeking cancellation of the above provisional registration and damages due to the extinguishment of the secured obligation, is not possible, separately from the agreed damages of KRW 8,330,000.

However, the lower court’s evidence Nos. 2 and 3 adopted as evidence to acknowledge a new arrangement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on August 7, 1980, did not have any evidence to acknowledge a new arrangement between the Defendant and the contract concluded on May 20, 1980 and May 27 of the same year, and it cannot be deemed that there was an agreement like the Defendant’s head, considering the following as evidence Nos. 12-4 and 5 prepared on October 1981.

Ultimately, the court below found the facts of the defendant's principal by only the result of the defendant's principal examination. The result of the party principal examination alone does not constitute a violation of the rules of evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Meu95, Jun. 14, 1983). This constitutes Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. The arguments are reasonable.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)