Cases determined on the basis of facts not asserted by the parties

It is illegal to argue that the promise to pay in accord is invalid only and that the promise to pay in accord is invalid, and in such a case, the court must clarify the reasons for the allegation as invalid by exercising the right of explanation.

Articles 104, 607, and 608 of the Civil Act

Oral machine

[Judgment of the court, etc.]

Seoul High Court Decision 62Na103 delivered on July 11, 1962

We reverse the original judgment.

The case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, if the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant's 10th day of September of the above 1959 for the interest rate of 60,00 % per month on the payment of the principal on the above 10th day of the settlement of accord and satisfaction with the defendant's 6th day of the settlement of accord and satisfaction with the defendant's 6th day of the settlement of accord and satisfaction with the defendant's 1st day of December of the same year, but the defendant's 1st day of the settlement of payment with the above 10th day of the settlement of payment with the defendant's 6th day of the settlement of payment, the above 6th day of the settlement of payment with the plaintiff's 1st day of the settlement of payment without the defendant's consent to transfer the above 1st day of the settlement of payment with the defendant's 1st day of the settlement of payment with the above 1st day of the settlement of payment with the defendant's 1st day of the settlement of payment without the plaintiff's opinion.

In addition, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim of 495,000 won for the plaintiff's Y's 495,00 won as to the defendant's Y, on the ground that Eul evidence No. 3 was made for transplant payment by the end of January 1, 1961 for the defendant's debt owed to the plaintiff, but in full view of the defendant's argument as to Eul evidence No. 3 in the records, such as the testimony of Kim Young-ran adopted as evidence by the court below, it cannot be recognized as a quasi-loan contract by taking the form of keeping interest on the principal of the defendant's debt owed to the plaintiff as of January 30, 1961, since at least the claim of interest rate under the transplant Restriction Ordinance is reasonable, and therefore, the judgment below

The issue is with merit, so it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who participated in accordance with the provisions of Articles 400 and 406 (1) of the amended Civil Procedure Act.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Magsan (Presiding Judge) of the Republic of Korea is a Mag-bunbun Mag-man