Order of hearing on the preceding sale and purchase and the assertion of payment in kind;

The plaintiff purchased Eul's real estate and claimed that Gap applied for payment in kind to the plaintiff's debt to the plaintiff, and the defendant can not recognize the establishment of payment in kind unless he deliberated and decided on the pre-sale.

Article 482 of the Civil Act

Foreign Exchange

The representative of the State and the Administrator of the Agency

Seoul District Court of the first instance, the Seoul High Court of the second instance, 49 civilian 427 delivered on May 29, 1952

We reverse the original judgment.

This case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the representative of the defendant are against the rules of evidence and there is a misunderstanding of the fact-finding. In other words, at the time of the original adjudication, the witness testimony under the Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Escopic Es, and the non-party Escopic Escopic Escopic Esc.

According to the appeal and the oral argument protocol of the court of first instance and the second instance among the records of the case, the plaintiff asserted that the land among the real estate in this case was owned by the non-party 1, but the debtor's crypty day was purchased, and the registration of transfer was made in accord and satisfaction of this case among the registration fees for the transfer of the real estate in this case. It is clear that the defendant clearly resists the facts. Thus, the court below acknowledged the substitute payment of this case without a prior deliberation and determination as to the difference in this case, according to the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the original judgment, the court below recognized the substitute payment of this case without a prior deliberation and determination as to the difference in this case. The original judgment is reasonable and it is so decided that the original judgment should be remanded to the Seoul High Court in order to re-examine the original judgment to the effect that the plaintiff's crypty is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition of Article 407 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)