01. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the grounds that there are errors in violation of the rules of evidence or lack of reasons

The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there is a violation of the rules of evidence or lack of reason

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Attorney Lee Jae-hee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na976 delivered on March 19, 1987

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff's assertion that the accident of this case occurred due to the accident of this case, i.e., the wheel wheeler's wheeler's wheel, but the wheeler's wheeler's wheeler's Sheet was damaged to the right Sheet's Sheet's Sheet's Sheet's Sheet's Sheet's Sheet's Sheet's Sheet's Sheet's Sheet's Sheet at the time of the accident, but the above wheeler's Sheet's Sheet's Sheet's Sheet's Sheet's Sheet's Sheet's Sheet's Sheet's Sheet's Sheet's Sheet's Sheet's us could not be found to have been driven by the driver of this case after the accident of this case after the accident of this case.

However, according to the contents of No. 4 (Written Confirmation) and the testimony of the first instance court witness Kim Jong-sik, the court below, as alleged by the plaintiff, found that the motor vehicle of this case was boomed by the wheel ray before and after the end of the accident, and caused damage to the right wheel ray so that the risk was boomed by the boom, and the cream cream was worn by the cream cream. The cream cream clor for a long time, so it can not be confirmed that the clor of the above clorlor's clor's clor's clor's clor's clor's clor's clor's clor's clor's clor's clor's clor's clor's clor's clor's clor's clor's ck.

In addition, the witness of the court below that the damage of the hybrid could also be caused by the shock, such as the instant accident, and that the hybrid of the hybrid of the instant vehicle is not by the shock, but by the wear and tear, and that it was damaged due to the wear and tear of the instant vehicle, it cannot be concluded that the instant accident was caused by the shot force, which was other than by a sudden stop, rather than by the malfunction of the brakes.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be grounded on the value judgment of the evidence, and it shall be deemed that there was an error of mistake of facts or of lack of reasoning by violating the rules of evidence, and it shall affect the judgment.

With respect to the second ground:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, even if the accident of this case occurred due to the decrease of the operation ability of the vehicle in front of the front side of the vehicle in this case, because the right hyp, which was the right hyp of the vehicle in this case, has already been teared before the accident in this case, and the lease was laid to the balp hyp wheeler and the balp hyp string, the court below determined that the vehicle in this case was the vehicle of this case, the father of the plaintiff, who was a non-party 1, was the vehicle of this case, who was employed by the defendant company in his own name, and was not regulated by the defendant company, and was not controlled by the defendant company, but the inspection and regular inspection were conducted by the plaintiff on his behalf, but in this case, the plaintiff was conducted with various inspections under his own responsibility, and it was reasonable to grant the defendant the defendant the obligation to maintain the accident in this case's case's case's fault and negligence as seen above.

However, the judgment of the court below also recognized that the automobile of this case was alternately driven by the non-party 1's contributions and the plaintiff (the plaintiff 1-7, which was adopted by the court below), and it is difficult to conclude that the accident of this case, which was recognized by the court below, was done by the non-party 1's prosecutor and the regular inspection conducted by the defendant company on behalf of the defendant company formally under the responsibility of the plaintiff and the implied consent, was conducted by the non-party 1's office, and the accident of this case was done by the non-party 1's office and the non-party 1's office. In addition, since the circumstance of the accident of this case was based on the premise that there was no error in the operating system of this case, it is necessary to provide a separate explanation as to what is the plaintiff's operational negligence in light of the circumstance of the accident recognized by the court below.

Therefore, this part of the judgment of the court below shall be deemed to be incomplete in its deliberation and to be in violation of the rules of evidence or an incomplete reasoning, and it shall affect the judgment. Therefore, it is reasonable to discuss this part within this scope.

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.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)