A. The case acknowledged that the testimony of two witnesses on the repayment of the principal and interest is not sufficient and the loan certificate is repaid despite the creditor's number of creditors, is against the rules of evidence.

(b) It is recognized that the act of borrowing money is erroneous, although the certificate of borrowing money is not in the name of the defendant and the testimony of the witness cannot be deemed to have been made by the defendant, regardless of the fact that the defendant borrowed money.

A. It is against the rules of evidence that the testimony of two witnesses on the repayment of the principal and interest is not sufficient and that the loan certificate is satisfied despite the creditor's number of creditors.

(b) In case where the rights and duties of a corporation are succeeded to a newly incorporated corporation under the provisions of Acts, such corporation’s legal status in a pending lawsuit shall also be succeeded to the newly incorporated corporation unless there are special grounds.

Article 393 of the Civil Procedure Act

Lee-young et al. (Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

Daegu High Court Decision 62Na68 delivered on June 14, 1962

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

The defendant's appeal against the plaintiff Lee Jong-hee is dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the part arising between the defendant and the plaintiff chief or senior plaintiff chief or senior plaintiff shall be borne by the defendant.

First, I would like to examine the grounds of appeal by the attorney of the Plaintiff Lee Jae-hoon.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant paid the principal and interest on 70,000,000 of the debt owed to the plaintiff Lee Jong-soo among the debt owed to the plaintiff Lee Jong-soo, by taking account of the parties' testimony at the order of Kim Jong-sung's witness at the court of first instance, but the court below compared the testimony as admitted as evidence and compared the records, the defendant paid 628,800 on October 14, 1960 of the testimony at the witness Kim Jong-sung's testimony on October 9, 1960, and the defendant did not pay 100,000 of the principal and interest at 40,0000 of the 15th of October 1960 and 60,000,000 of the 111th of November 11, 1960 of the 70,000,0000 of the debt repaid to the plaintiff Lee Jong-chul-chul's Lee, and there were no errors in violation of the facts.

Next, we examine the grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s attorney.

As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 3, and 4

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant borrowed 1,100,000 Do 1 from the plaintiff Lee Jong-soo on three occasions. However, according to the evidence that the court below acknowledged that the borrower borrowed 200,000 Do 10,000 Do 1 from April 19, 1959, the court below erred in the rules of evidence in violation of the rules of evidence, since the plaintiff borrowed 20,000 Do 1,000 Do 200,000 Do 200,000 Do 200,000 Do 1, and according to the testimony of the witness of the court of first instance as the witness of the court of first instance, the money was borrowed from the plaintiff Kim flood and the defendant was affixed at the creditor's request, the above evidence is not admitted as evidence.

The Second Ground of Appeal

In light of the purport of the plaintiffs' arguments and the facts admitted by the court below in light of the records, it is clear in the judgment of the court below that the non-party 1 as her husband's representative did not recognize the fact that the non-party 1 borrowed money from the plaintiffs as her husband's representative, and that the defendant's indication, through the non-party 1 as her husband's representative, she is the non-party 1 as her husband's representative, so

As to the fifth ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the testimony of the kind of friendship and Kim Training, which are opposed to the judgment of the court below, and according to the records, the plaintiffs lawfully withdraw the claim portion of the interest on the date of pleading on November 10, 1961 of the court of first instance, but the plaintiff High Aid and the plaintiff High Aid et al. claimed interest again on the date of pleading on May 10, 1962 of the court below, and there was no objection against this. Thus, there was no violation of the law in the court below's disposition since the defendant raised no objection against this.

The above reasons are as follows: (a) the first ground for appeal of the plaintiff Lee Jong-chul and the first ground for appeal of the defendant is reasonable; and (b) the defendant's argument about the plaintiff Lee Jong-hee and the plaintiff Lee Jong-hee is without merit; and (c) it is so decided as per Disposition

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