The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the testimony without credibility alone recognized that there was an agreement on interest after the maturity date.

The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the testimony without credibility alone recognized that there was an agreement on interest after the maturity date.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Attorney Hong-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Park Young-type Attorney Choi Young-min et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na4001 delivered on November 17, 1989

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized that the scope of the obligation secured by this real estate was transferred to the defendant by the plaintiff as well as the company's obligation that the plaintiff agreed to repay to the defendant as well as the company's obligation that the plaintiff owes to the defendant at that time, and that the amount of obligation is 274,766,33 won as well as 266,147,200 won as of June 15, 1983 and that the price as of June 15, 1983 was 266,147,200 won as of June 15, 1983, and thus dismissed the plaintiff's claim by recognizing that the real estate was finally reverted to the defendant at that time, since the defendant expressed his intention of attribution as a mortgagee at that time, the court below's fact-finding and legal judgment of the court below in comparison with the reasoning of the judgment of the court below are acceptable as it is, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts-finding.

However, according to the records of the propriety of the secured debt amount acknowledged by the court below and the records of Eul evidence 1-1-2-7 (out-of-the-counter purchase status) and Eul evidence 2-7 (over-the-counter purchase burden) as to the above secured debt amount, the court below acknowledged that the above secured debt amount was not paid by the defendant to the plaintiff 1-5, 100, 475, 100, and 436,80, 13-13, 2-1-2, 2-1 and 2-7, 3-1 of the above secured debt amount as to the above secured debt amount, and the above secured debt amount was not paid by the non-party 1-5, 1982, and the above secured debt amount was not paid by the non-party 2's 1-3, 197, 3-10, 3-100, 15-10, 1982.

However, according to the records, it is recognized that the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendant’s subrogated payment and loan by November 30, 1982. However, with respect to the part that the Plaintiff paid interest at the rate of 3 percent per month after the above payment period, there is no evidence other than the above Kim Yong-tin’s statement, and there is no evidence that the Plaintiff paid interest on the obligations arising after the above payment period.

However, there is no other evidence to support the above Kim Jong-seok's statement portion, and considering the fact that the defendant received the real estate of this case from the plaintiff and used it without rent as soon as the above corporation acquisition agreement is acknowledged, the testimony of the above evidence No. 38 or Kim Jong-seok's testimony is difficult to believe.

Therefore, as long as there is no other proof as to the agreement of interest, the secured debt of this case is incurred before November 30, 1982 shall be paid from December 1 of the same year, and from December 1 of the same year, damages for delay shall be paid at the rate of 5 percent per annum from the date of the request for performance.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the amount of debt to be borne by the plaintiff is 274,766,333 won and that the defendant's expression of intent to revert to the defendant is valid is erroneous as a misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the appeal

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)