In case where it is recognized that the contents of the disposal document as evidence of fact-finding are contrary to the rules of evidence by excluding the interpretation of the disposal document.

The judgment of the court below recognized the fact that the seller, who is a major shareholder of the defendant company, deducted part of the purchase price at the time of selling the land, building and stocks of the defendant company to Eul, and there was an agreement between the purchaser and the representative of the defendant company Byung at the time of paying retirement consolation benefits to the employees of the defendant company jointly and severally with the defendant company. According to the contents of the disposition documents as evidence, it is difficult to recognize that there was an agreement between the defendant company and the non-party company to provide part of the purchase price as security of the non-party theater, as well as the statement that the purchaser would provide retirement consolation benefits out of the purchase price as a collateral, and it is difficult to conclude that there was an agreement between the non-party company and the non-party company to provide part of the purchase price as security of the non-party theater as security of the non-party theater, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to view it as an agreement with the defendant company Byung as an agreement with the non-party company's representative director.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na3727 delivered on December 26, 1967, Seoul High Court Decision 66Na3727 delivered on December 26, 1967

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

As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by Defendant’s Attorney

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 1, who is a major shareholder of the defendant company, and the non-party 1, who is a de facto manager, entered the above non-party 3's land and building of the defendant company and the 1,200,000 won of shares at the time of sale to the non-party 2 (the non-party 3's wife), and the seller deducted the above 10,000,000 won from the balance of the above sale price, and the non-party 1,50,000 won should be paid to the directors and auditors of the defendant company at the time of sale to the non-party 1,50,000 won from 0,000 won from the above sale price to the non-party 1,00 won from the above 1,00,000 won from the above sale price to the non-party 3's office and the defendant company's representative director's 00,000 won from the above sale price.

Therefore, according to Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Presiding Justice (Presiding Justice)