Whether it is a counter-performance of an obligation where the intent of the party is unclear (affirmative)

If the assumption of the obligation is overlapped, it is a matter of interpretation of the intention of the parties indicated in the assumption of the obligation, and it is deemed that it is the acceptance of the obligation in case of the assumption of the obligation, or if it is not clear whether it is the overlapping person or not.

Articles 453 and 454 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Meu3104 Decided May 24, 1988 (Gong1988, 1987) Decided 4, 1962, Supreme Court Decision 98Da33765 Decided November 24, 1998 (Gong1999Sang, 199Sang, 19)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na67791 delivered on June 4, 2002

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

1. Whether the assumption of an obligation is overlapped is a matter of interpretation of the intention of the parties indicated in the assumption of an obligation agreement (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da33765 delivered on November 24, 198), and it shall be deemed that the assumption of an obligation is taken over repeatedly if it is deemed that the assumption of an obligation is a discharge in respect of the assumption of an obligation, or if it is not clear whether the person who assumes an overlapping obligation is a discharge in respect of the assumption of an obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 4294Da1087 delivered on April 4, 1962, Supreme Court Decision 87Meu3104 delivered on May 24, 198, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged facts based on the evidences of employment, and it is difficult to see that there was a conclusive agreement between the parties to exempt the defendant from the defendant's obligation, and in light of the facts of the judgment, it is reasonable to see that the defendant's obligation of KRW 67,50,000, which the defendant decided to pay to the plaintiff was acquired by the non-party 1 or non-party 2 who acquired the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site of the Dongdong apartment, and rejected the defendant's defense that the non-party 1 acquired the above amount of KRW 67,50,000 on the exemption from liability. In light of the above legal principles and the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the assumption of obligation or the omission of judgment, as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is difficult for the court below to believe that the evidence corresponding to the judgment of the court below on the defendant's argument that the non-party 1 or 2 paid all of the above debts is insufficient to recognize it only with other evidences, and it is not sufficient to recognize it, and it is reasonable to reject the above argument of the defendant and to accept the plaintiff's claim seeking payment of 67,50,000 won as it is judged that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or failure to exercise the right to ask for a misunderstanding of facts

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)