Supplementary evidence of the result of the party examination;

Without any other evidence, the facts of the plaintiff's principal cannot be recognized only by the result of the plaintiff's principal examination.

Articles 339 and 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 4288Da1249 Decided November 3, 1955, Decision 4288Da199 Decided July 5, 1966, Decision 62Da694 Decided December 27, 1962, Decision 64Da1222 Decided July 23, 1964, Decision 66Da1263 Decided June 29, 1966, Supreme Court Decision 66Da1249 Decided October 8, 1968

Plaintiff

Defendant

Gwangju High Court Decision 82Na415 delivered on December 3, 1982

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On April 7, 197, the judgment of the court below concluded a lease contract with the defendant for 1 year from April 17, 197 to April 17, 197, with respect to (2,500,000, the lease period of the lease contract is 2,000 won for 1 year from April 17, 1977 to 197, and 1,500,000 won for 21,00 won for the remainder of 70,000 won for payment in cash to the defendant, and the plaintiff shall be equipped with the necessary facilities at the location of the store after the occupancy of the defendant and 1,00 won for 20,000 won for each interest to the plaintiff. The plaintiff shall move into the store at the market price at the time of the request for 200,000 won for 1,000,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,00 won for 3.

2. The records show that the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 2,50,000,00 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s assertion at the time the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff’s presentation of the name of the store of this case to the Plaintiff was not the result of the Plaintiff’s personal examination. However, it is just acceptable that the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff’s compensation at the market price at the time of the request for the presentation of the name of the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's newspaper that he agreed to pay 2,50,000 won directly shall not be sufficient to prove for the plaintiff's beneficial interest in this case without any other evidence, and according to the application for payment order to be considered as a lawsuit by the record (the statement at the court of first instance on February 26, 1982), it is evident that the above amount of 2,50,000 won is added to repair facility costs and the premium, etc., so it is apparent that the above amount of 2,50,000 won is less than the above amount of 2,50,000 won at the time of the above request for explanation, and there is no evidence to find out the existing price of the plaintiff's repair and facilities by the record, so there is an error of law that makes a fact-finding without sufficient deliberation and without evidence.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices involved.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)