Cases of trial on matters not asserted by the parties;

The court below's assertion that Gap, who worked in the plaintiff union, sold a pesticide of 380 disease of Smido from the plaintiff union during his/her term of office, and embezzled it and caused damage to the plaintiff union by embezzlementing it. The defendant, the guarantor of the plaintiff union, can be acknowledged as the fact that Gap, who is the guarantor of the plaintiff union, ships the pesticide like the plaintiff's head of the plaintiff union, from the plaintiff union, with the plaintiff's head of the plaintiff union. However, the court below's determination that Gap, after distributing the above pesticide to the above members, did not have any evidence to prove the fact that Gap embezzled it by receiving the above pesticide, it is difficult to exempt the plaintiff's decision on the matters not asserted by the parties.

Article 188 of the Civil Procedure Act

Jeonju Land Improvement Cooperatives

Maapju

Jeonju District Court Decision 67Na68 delivered on June 16, 1967

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

The Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal are examined. The Plaintiff’s first day for pleading, 1967.4. 219:00, the first day for pleading, which is the first day for pleading, is named as follows. In other words, the Defendant provided so-called guarantee during the period in which the Nonparty worked in the Plaintiff Union. The Nonparty without permission, sold an agrochemical of 380 disease (the sick price of 143 won) from the Plaintiff Union during his/her term of office, and embezzled this to the Plaintiff Union, and caused damage to the Plaintiff Union. The Defendant, the surety, who is the surety, should compensate for this damage. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the Plaintiff’s assertion, which led to the fact that the non-party, as alleged in the Plaintiff’s assertion, had an agrochemical delivered from the Plaintiff Association to the Plaintiff Association as the date of the Plaintiff’s assertion, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the non-party received the above pesticide after distributing it to the Plaintiff Association and embezzled this amount. The lower court did not dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on this issue.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court is Hong Dong-dong (Presiding Judge) and Dong-dong (Presiding Justice)