Whether the parties are aware of facts inconsistent with facts that are not disputed (negative)

Under the Korean Civil Procedure Act, which employs the principle of pleading, the principle of parties, or the principle of disposition, the existence of a principal fact shall not be based on the judgment unless the parties have asserted, nor shall it be bound by the pleading to recognize the fact that there is no dispute between the parties.

Article 188 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other, Defendant et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Daegu High Court Decision 81Na506 delivered on July 1, 1982

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

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the above 7th anniversary of the above 7th anniversary of the fact that the above 7th anniversary of the above 7th anniversary of the fact that the plaintiff's transfer of ownership was owned by the deceased non-party 1, the plaintiff 7th of 18th of 197 and the above 10th of 7th of 7th of 7th of 7th of 7th of 7th of 7th of 1972, the Seoul Trust Bank sold the above part payments to the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 on September 20, 197, and the defendant 1 transferred the above 7th of 0th of 7th of 0th of 7th of 7th of 7th of 7th of 7th of 197 the above 7th of 7th of 0th of 7th of 7th of 6th of 197 7th of 7th of 197th of 197 of 2.

2. According to the Korean Civil Procedure Act, which employs the principle of pleading against the plaintiff, principle of party or disposal, the existence of major facts cannot be considered as the basis for the judgment unless the parties have asserted, and the facts are not in dispute between the parties, the plaintiff is bound to accept the conclusion of the sale contract. The plaintiff's statement in the first instance court of March 27, 1979 that "if the plaintiff pays 4,000,000 won to the site of this case" in the complaint of this case stated on the 19th trial, the plaintiff would not be entitled to the transfer registration of ownership from the bank of this case, and the defendant would not be entitled to the transfer registration of ownership 70,000 won to the defendant's last 70,000 won to the 19,000 won of the sale and sale contract of this case to the 197,000 won of the sale and sale contract, and the defendant would not be entitled to the transfer registration of ownership 70,070,000 won of the above money.

3. Therefore, without any need to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by the defendant, etc., the judgment of the court below shall not be exempted from reversal, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the case to be reversed and repatriated.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)