The case that reversed the judgment below on the ground of violation of the rules of evidence.

The case that reversed the judgment below on the ground of violation of the rules of evidence.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other, Counsel for the defendant-appellee and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee)

Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 84Na2829 delivered on June 11, 1987

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the non-party 1 had a claim of 149,30,000 won against the defendant pursuant to the agreement with the defendant (the representative non-party 2) on Sep. 26, 1983. On Nov. 29, 1983, the non-party 1 transferred 80,000 won of the above claim against the defendant to the plaintiffs, and notified the defendant of the above transfer by the content-certified mail with a fixed date and confirmed that the notice of transfer was delivered to the defendant on Dec. 2, 1983, and confirmed that the non-party 1, the agent of the plaintiff et al., reached the agreement with the defendant on Dec. 8, 1983 that the non-party 3 would be exempted from the defendant's obligation to acquire the above amount of the above claim against the defendant, and even if the non-party 1 was not authorized to act as proxy of the plaintiff, the non-party 1 was entitled to receive the above amount of 100,000,500.

According to the records, upon examining the evidence cited by the court below in recognizing that the non-party 1 entered into a contract with the defendant on December 8, 1983 that the non-party 3 should be exempted from the defendant's obligation to pay the above amount to the plaintiffs on behalf of the plaintiffs, it is difficult to readily conclude that the non-party 3 agreed that the non-party 1 should be exempted from the defendant's obligation to pay the above amount to the plaintiffs, including the testimony of the non-party 1, the non-party 3 and the non-party 1, the parties to the contract, and the testimony of the non-party 15-7, the evidence of the non-party 15-8, which are employed by the court below, as well as the contents of the non-party 2's testimony are inconsistent with the contents of the non-party 1, the non-party 3, and the defendant's obligation to take over the defendant's obligation to the non-party 3 on December 8, 198.

Recognizing the fact that Nonparty 1, Nonparty 3, and Defendant 3 entered into a contract with the Defendant to exempt the Defendant from the Defendant’s obligation to the Defendant on December 8, 1983 based on only the evidence in its holding, the court below erred by misapprehending the value judgment of evidence or by violating the rules of evidence recognizing facts without evidence, and it is obvious that this affected the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on the premise that the above contract exists. Therefore, the argument pointing this out is justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-Ba (Presiding Justice)