(a) The method of offering and expressing intent to accept an offer necessary for the formation of the exchange contract;

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below that rejected all evidence that Gap and Eul's son agreed to exchange Eul's dry field with Eul's dry field and Eul's dry field, and that Eul's dry field was delivered to Eul pursuant to an exchange contract unless Gap raised an objection or did not manage dry field, but all evidence that there was an exchange contract, and that there was an exchange contract, there was an error in violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence

A. An exchange contract is a so-called abortion contract which is concluded by the parties concerned with the expression of intent to offer and the expression of consent thereto. The expression of intent to offer is specific to the extent that the contract can be concluded immediately if the contents of the contract are consented thereto, and the acceptance must be related to such specific offer. In this case, the expression of consent does not necessarily require any restriction on the method, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below that rejected all evidence that Gap and Eul's son agreed to exchange Eul's dry field with Eul's dry field and Eul's dry field, and that Eul's dry field had been leased to Byung and cultivated for one year, but Gap did not object to Eul or managed dry field, and the dry field was delivered to Eul according to an exchange contract, but the dry field was delivered to Eul, and there was an error in violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence.

A.B. Article 596 of the Civil Procedure Act. Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 4289Sang45 Decided March 17, 1956

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and 3 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Jeju District Court Decision 91Na490 delivered on June 11, 1992

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Jeju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant 1 entered into a contract between Defendant 1 and Nonparty 1, who represented the Plaintiff on November 20, 1987, for exchanging the dry field in the instant dry field in the name of co-ownership of the Defendants and two forest lots in the name of the Plaintiff as indicated in the judgment of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on the grounds that: (a) the entries of No. 2-3, No. 4, and No. 3; and (b) the testimony of Nonparty 2, Nonparty 1, Nonparty 3, and Nonparty 4 are not trustable; and (c) the statements of No. 2-6, Nonparty 7, and 8 of the evidence No. 2 are insufficient to recognize

An exchange contract is a so-called abortion contract which is concluded by the parties concerned with the expression of intent to make an offer and the expression of intent to accept it. The expression of intent to make an offer does not require the preparation in writing. The expression of intent to make an offer must be specific to the extent that the contract can be concluded immediately if the contents thereof are consented thereto, and the acceptance should be related to such specific offer. In this case, the expression of consent does not require any restriction on the method, unless there are any special circumstances.

However, according to the evidence rejected by the court below, Gap evidence No. 2-5, which was rejected by the court below, was examined as the case where the plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against defendant 1 for property damage. According to the above defendant's examination protocol, around November 20, 1987, it was deemed that the above defendant used two lots of forest land as stated in the plaintiff's name, which is adjacent to his smuggling orchard, to be attached to the enclosed orchard, and it was said that the plaintiff would exchange the dry field of this case and the two lots of forest land above with non-party 1, who is the plaintiff, but the above two lots of forest land can be used for reclamation. Since the above two lots of land were calculated as reclamation expenses, the plaintiff did not exchange them with the above 8,00,000 won, and the plaintiff did not know that it was completely exchanged with the above 4th dry field of this case, and the defendant did not use the dry field of this case until August 1, 198.

As acknowledged by the above evidence, around November 20, 1987, Defendant 1 called that the Plaintiff would exchange the dry field of this case with the forest land as indicated in the judgment, which is the Plaintiff’s son, and thereafter, the Plaintiff leased the dry field of this case to Nonparty 4 and let her cultivate it for a period of one year with the knowledge that the above exchange was complete, and during that period, the Defendant did not raise any objection despite the fact that the use of the dry field of this case could not be seen as the situation of use of the dry field of this case each day, and without managing the dry field, it is presumed that the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 agreed to exchange the above two land, and it is reasonable to view that the dry field of this case was delivered to the Plaintiff under the above exchange agreement.

Nevertheless, the court below's rejection of the evidence which stated that the exchange contract of this case was concluded without a reasonable explanation can not be an illegal action against the rules of evidence in violation of the rules of evidence selection and value judgment, and there is a reason to point this out.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)