Effect as evidence of the formation of a contract where one of the parties to the contract has no seal of the party and only the name and seal of the other party to the contract exists.

Where two copies of the same contract are prepared to certify the formation of the contract and both parties keep one copy of the same contract, if only the name and seal of the other party is affixed to the contract to be kept in their custody, they may be adopted as evidence of the formation of the contract, except in extenuat

Central Reconstruction Business Corporation

Han-si

Seoul District Court Decision 62Na455 delivered on February 8, 1963, Seoul High Court Decision 62Na455 delivered on February 8, 196

We reverse the original judgment.

The case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court.

The gist of the grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney is as follows: the court below rejected evidence consistent with the defendant's argument that the defendant purchased the site of this case from the plaintiff as price 1,155,000 (oldization) and completed a registration of creation of a collateral security on the building on the site of this case owned by the defendant, which is larger than the above amount, and accepted the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the defendant's possession of the site of this case was not justified; although the defendant accepted the plaintiff's claim on the premise that he did not have a legitimate title, each of the contents of evidence Nos. 3 and 4 as well as the testimony at the 1 and 2nd court of Han-ho, the defendant's above assertion can be sufficiently recognized, and there is no difference between the sales contract (No. 3) under which the defendant's own seal is affixed and the contract formation is not established. Therefore, the court below erred by violating

In order to prove the formation of a contract between the parties, it is generally recognized that the contract to be kept in its own possession has the name and seal of the other party, and the effect of proving the formation of the contract can be recognized, regardless of the existence of the other party's seal, in the case where both parties preserve the same form of a contract in order to verify the formation of the contract between the parties, and the contract to be kept in their own possession can be accepted as evidence of the formation of the contract unless there is any assertion as to the special reason that the fact that the contract was not affixed to the contract, which is one's own number, does not consent to the formation of the contract, can be adopted as evidence of the formation of the contract. Nevertheless, the decision of the court below that the defendant did not agree to the contract because the contract of the building site kept by the defendant had the seal of the other party on the ground that there is no seal affixed to the contract of the other party, and that the defendant did not agree to the contract, as alleged by the defendant, the contents of No. 4 and 5, and the testimony of No. 1 and 2, the witness stand.

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

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the two judges of the two Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) shall have the highest leapbal leaps