due to the non-exercise of the right to ask for a statement, the case in which the court neglected to determine the value of the evidence;

This is a case where the non-exercise of the right to ask for a name is neglected to determine the value of evidence.

Article 126 of the Civil Act

Korea

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 65Na572 delivered on December 31, 1965

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case shall be remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff is examined.

According to the original judgment, the court below excluded the plaintiff's main claim on the ground that there was no evidence to support the difference between Gap's official document Nos. 1 and 5, and the defendant's official document Nos. 1 and 1421, and some of the farmland owned by the defendant was purchased in a country and the compensation amount was stated in the country for the land price securities issued to the defendant in compensation, and the land price securities issued to the defendant in the country as compensation, but there was no evidence to support the defendant's receipt of the difference at any time.

However, according to the records, the plaintiff stated that the land price securities issued to the defendant as the cause of the claim of this lawsuit and the amount of compensation No. 1421 shall be 489. The plaintiff paid the amount of compensation stated in the land price securities but claimed the return thereof in excess of 21,411 won, and the defendant recognized the fact that the plaintiff received compensation due to the issuance of the land price securities (see the answer filed in Chapter 52 of the record). It is obvious that the defendant stated that the value of No. 1 through No. 6 (No. 1 and No. 3 and No. 1-2 and No. 5 of the above No. 1 are the same documents.) stated in detail on the ground that the above 1-1 and No. 41-2 and No. 1-2 of the above 5-1 and No. 5-2 of the 1-2 of the 1-2 of the 3-2 of the 1-2 of the 1-2 of the 4-2 of the 5-1-2 of the 5-2 of the 1-2 of the 3-2 of the 3- appraisal.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges of the two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)