Cases of incomplete hearing in determining evidence;

The case holding that there is an error in failing to deliberate and decide on the document that can be seen as a waiver of the right to claim damages.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff 1 and five others

Countries

Seoul High Court Decision 65Na1705 delivered on June 17, 1966

Of the original judgment, the part against the defendant as to the plaintiff 1's claim is reversed.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

All appeals against the remainder are dismissed.

The costs of the appeal against the plaintiffs except the plaintiff 1 shall be borne by the defendant.

As to the Defendant’s Attorney’s ground of appeal:

In its explanation of its reasoning, the original judgment: (a) signed and sealed a document (Evidence A 6) stating that Plaintiff 1 had given up 20,000 won when taking over the body of his wife who is the victim from the Defendant on the day following the occurrence of the accident; and (b) it can be recognized that the document was printed prior to the Defendant’s transport department; (c) according to that fact, the document is merely a pre-printed document; and (d) it is difficult to view that the above Plaintiff signed and sealed the document without considering the legal effect of the content of the document at the Defendant’s request, and that the amount of the provisional payment is too small compared to the amount of the damage compensation claim, and thus, it is difficult to view that Plaintiff 1 has waived his claim for damages as a medical doctor.

However, it is difficult to conclude that the document No. 6 (Evidence No. 1) written on the ground that the document No. 6 (Evidence No. 1) written on the ground that it was printed on the traffic department in advance, is merely an example. Although it is difficult to see the meaning of the reasoning explanation that it is difficult to see it as a true expression of intention, and it is difficult to conclude that the contents indicated on the above document cannot be recognized as a plaintiff No. 1's declaration of intent merely on the ground that it was explained above, the original judgment which held above is reasonable in violation of the rules of evidence or in violation of the rules of evidence, and the part against the defendant as to the plaintiff No. 6 (Evidence No. 1) in the original judgment against the defendant as to the plaintiff No. 1's claim should not be reversed. In particular, it is necessary to examine and determine whether it was a document to waive the claim for damages, and it is not possible to recognize that there is a ground of appeal on the defendant No. 6 (Evidence No. 1) document in the original judgment.

Therefore, according to Articles 406 and 399 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges of the two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)