Whether the contracting party is the person in the contract entered into with the Jeon Dong-dong Ando-dong Ando-dong Ando-do-do-do-do.

In case where the representative's leader who was a party to a contract is ambiguously indicated in the order of work, he cannot be seen as a temporary organization established for the purpose of publication of a family table under the former Cr. Cr. Cr. Cr. Cr. Cr. Cr. Cr. Cr. Cr. C., which is a party to a contract, is an organization with the ability to acquire a right and bear a duty. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the above leader and the mother who are engaged in major activities for publication of a family table among the whole species, were to conclude the contract as an individual qualification.

Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (66A1265) of the first instance court (Supreme Court Decision 66A1265)

The part against the plaintiff in the original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 167,806 and the amount of KRW 143,00,000 with 6% per annum from January 1, 1964 to the full payment.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be divided by adding up the costs of lawsuit of the first and second instances, and one of them shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 600,000 won with an annual interest rate of 6% from January 1, 1964 to the full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit cost shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The plaintiff's attorney shall revoke the part against the plaintiff in the original judgment.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 40 million won with an annual interest rate of 6 percent from January 1, 1964 to the full payment.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instances, and a sentence of provisional execution shall be sought, and the defendant's attorney shall revoke the part against the defendant in the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All court costs are assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

Although it is difficult for the plaintiff to recognize the above 0-mentioned 1 (the above 0-mentioned contract paper) to enter the above 0-mentioned 1, 2, 3 (written request for deposit) in the above 0-mentioned 0-party 1's 0-party 1's 6-party 1's 6-party 1's 6-party 1's 6-party 1's 0's 6-party 1's 0's 6-party 1's 0's 0's 1's 6-party 1's 0's 6-party 1's 0's 0's 6-party 1's 0's 0's 1's 6-party 1's 0's 1's 6-party 1's 0's 6-party 1's 6's 1's 6-party 1's 6's 1's 's 6- party 1's 6's 1's 's 's 6''''''s 1'

In other words, if the above facts are examined in the exhibition and supply contract concluded jointly with the plaintiff between the defendant and the non-party 6, it can be known that the contract entered into between the defendant and the non-party 6 in the order of work who is the party to the contract. However, as recognized in the above, the above Mesium cannot be viewed as a temporary organization established for the purpose of publication of a sufficient table and an organization capable of being capable of being responsible for the obligation (referred to as the evidence No. 1 and No. 2). In particular, if we examine the fact that the defendant and the non-party 62 are the parties to the contract, the publication of the Mesium is a kind of Mesium, although the publication of the Mesium is in the legal nature of the Mesium and the Mesium, in the legal nature of the Mesium, the contract between the plaintiff and the non-party 6, who is the main party to the contract and the non-party 6, who is the party to the contract, is liable for damages due to the contract's obligations.

Furthermore, according to the whole purport of the testimony and arguments of the court below and the non-party 5 of the witness non-party 1 of the court below's decision as to the amount of damages, the printing office operated by the plaintiff around September 1963 operated as 83 fixed employees and paid monthly salary of 257,00 won to the above employees. The plaintiff's printing office of 700 quality of 700 won pursuant to the contract of this case will take about 1 month upon commencement of work with printing facilities and employees of the above plaintiff's management. The above plaintiff's printing office of the above plaintiff's printing company can make profits at least for a monthly salary to be paid to the above employees if engaged in other printing work with printing facilities and fixed employees for 1 month. The above plaintiff's printing office of the above plaintiff's printing company of the above plaintiff's management would have been engaged in other printing work for the contract execution period of this case x KRW 500,700,500,700,000 won for the above printing work.

Therefore, the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation are KRW 647,50,00, the contract amount of KRW 47,500, which the Plaintiff would have incurred if the contract had been performed, and KRW 257,00,00, the time required for the Plaintiff’s performance of this case’s contract and the amount of KRW 304,50,00,000, which was earned by engaging in the printing work with the labor force of employees, etc., shall be deemed to have been the same cause for the Plaintiff. Therefore, the amount of KRW 304,50,000, which was deducted from the total amount

Therefore, the claim of this lawsuit is reasonable after the execution date of this case, which is the rate of 343,00 won which the plaintiff recognized as above against the defendant, and it is from January 1, 1964 to January 26, 1966, to the extent that the plaintiff seeks to pay an amount equivalent to the rate of 6% per annum which is the commercial interest rate of 6%, which is the commercial interest rate of the plaintiff's claim, and the remainder is dismissed. Since the part against the plaintiff which is different from the original judgment is unfair, it is modified, and the amount exceeding the amount as cited by the court below is 143,000 won and the amount with an annual rate of 6% from January 1, 1964 to the full payment rate of 20,000 won, which is the amount as cited by the court below, and the provisional execution of this lawsuit is dismissed and it is not necessary to apply Article 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to the defendant's appeal as well as Article 98 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)