Whether it is against the principle of pleading that the court’s subsequent cancellation of a sales contract where the Defendant denies the purchase and sale of the Plaintiff’s principal, by recognizing the fact that the sales contract was concluded.

If the defendant denies the purchase and sale of the plaintiff's principal, it cannot be deemed that the court violated the principle of pleading by recognizing the fact that the sales contract was cancelled due to the debtor's non-performance of obligation, despite the fact that the contract was concluded based on evidence.

Jeonju District Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on September 2, 201

Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 74Na870 delivered on February 28, 1975

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

According to the court below's findings, since the plaintiff was the owner of the forest land that the plaintiff argued in the fact-finding court, it was clear that he sold only the standing timber on the ground to the non-party to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff argued that he purchased the above standing timber from the above plaintiff to the non-party to the plaintiff, and the defendant denied the above fact-finding. Thus, the court below's decision that the above high-dong and the plaintiff cancelled the sales contract with the non-party to the non-party to the non-party to the plaintiff, even though it is acknowledged by evidence that the contract was concluded between the above high-dong and the non-party to the above high-dong based on the evidence, cannot be viewed as violating the principle of pleading because the court below's decision that the contract was cancelled due to the non-party to the non-party's non-party to the above high-dong and the plaintiff's non-party to the plaintiff's non-party to the plaintiff's claim.

Justices Red Man-Man (Presiding Justice)