In the absence of an incomplete hearing to find facts against the rules of evidence.

The facts are not found to be incomplete and the facts are actual in violation of the rules of evidence.

Article 628 of the Civil Act, Article 639 of the Civil Act

Korea

Defendant 1 and two others

Daegu High Court Decision 66Na373 delivered on April 28, 1967

The part of the original judgment against the plaintiff shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

With respect to the plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 3 of the plaintiff's litigant, the original judgment applied to the plaintiff on December 26, 1963 for the continued use of the site in the joint and several surety of other defendants, and the plaintiff applied to the plaintiff on September 8, 1964 for the use of the site in this application by the defendant 1, the plaintiff used the site on September 8, 1964, with the fee of KRW 760,200, the fee of KRW 700 in the ordinary pension, and notified the permission of use to submit the response document within seven days after the arrival of the permission, and then there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendants consented to the above plaintiff's offer within seven days after the arrival of the permission, or that the loan agreement of the plaintiff's principal was established.

However, according to Gap evidence No. 1, which was adopted by the original judgment, the defendant 1 applied for permission to continue the use of the building site. The defendant 1 expressed his/her intention to perform all obligations for the continued use if the use of only the fee column is blank, and the remaining defendants permitted to continue the use of the loan by the defendant 1, it can be interpreted that the defendant 1 expressed his/her comprehensive intent as joint and several liability. Accordingly, in granting permission to continue the use of the building site as requested by the defendants on September 7, 1964, the director general of Busan Regional Shipping Bureau, which belongs to the plaintiff, determined the conditions to be fulfilled by the defendants in granting permission to continue the use of the building site as requested by the defendants on September 7, 194. Unless there is any objection, unless there is any special circumstance, the defendant's request for permission to use the building site as stated in Gap evidence No. 1, and unless the defendant submitted an objection, the defendant did not have any influence on the plaintiff's permission to use the building site as well as his/her duty to the defendant's failure to submit the above judgment.

Therefore, according to Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges (Presiding Judge) of the two judges of the Supreme Court and the vice versa.