The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was an error in violation of the rules of evidence selection.

The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was an error in violation of the rules of evidence selection.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellee and three others

Choung Bank Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee and two others

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

Seoul High Court Decision 89Na27906 delivered on March 28, 1990

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below proposed that the non-party 1 paid the above 10-year interest rate to the non-party 1 who was aware of the defendant bank's customer at around September 197, the non-party 1 paid the above 10-year interest rate to the non-party 2's office deposit account at the 10-year interest rate or the 10-year interest rate to the non-party 8-year interest rate, and that the non-party 1 paid the above 1-year interest rate to the non-party 2's office deposit account at the 10-year interest rate to the non-party 1's office, and that the non-party 2 received the above 9-year interest rate to the non-party 1's office deposit account at the 10-year interest rate to the non-party 1's office deposit account at the 197-year interest rate to the non-party 1's office's 9-year interest rate to the non-party 1's office deposit account.

However, the court below's testimony that Nonparty 1 was admitted as evidence of the fact-finding that Nonparty 1 paid 522,100,000 won to Nonparty 1 as deposit money to Defendant Bank, which is the most essential evidence of the fact-finding that Nonparty 1 was admitted as evidence of the first instance court's testimony and in particular, that Nonparty 1 received 5% interest rate of 1% per month from Nonparty 1, and it is the testimony that Nonparty 1 received 5% interest rate of 5% per month from Defendant bank (Seoul Civil District Court's Case No. 82Gahap607 case). He stated that Nonparty 1 was a witness who was paid 82,10,000 won to Defendant bank as a common deposit with Nonparty 1's recommendation (the evidence No. 4-7 and the record No. 801 of the Seoul Civil Court's case No. 97 and the record No. 801).

In addition, according to the records, the non-party Kim Jong-soo alleged that the three executives of the defendant bank asked that interest from the three executives of the defendant bank would not be charged to the non-party 1, and that there was no interest from the non-party 1. The contents of the Kim Jong-soo's written statement (Evidence 4-65) also state the same purport, the contents of the above-mentioned testimony conflict with the contents of the above written statement or written statement.

In the end, the testimony of the first instance court is not consistent or inconsistent with the contents of other evidence, and thus, it is difficult to have a hot credibility.

The court below's finding the fact that the non-party 1 by deceiving the above Kim Jong-hee as if he received the deposit in a normal way on the basis of the above Kim Jong-hee's testimony is erroneous in the violation of the rules of evidence as to the judgment of value of the evidence. 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 Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)