Cases where there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to constructive confessions;

There is no defense that the defendant made a repayment as a person who did not appear on the date of pleading after being summoned by service by public notice. However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff was found to have neglected the legal principles of constructive confession.

Article 31 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, Article 139 of the Civil Procedure Act

Korea National Housing Corporation

Defendant 1 and 11 others

Seoul Civil Area, Seoul High Court Decision 64Na1516 delivered on October 26, 1966, decided October 26, 1966

(1) Of the judgment of the court below, the part of the claim against the Defendant Jeongwon is reversed, and that part is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

(2) The Plaintiff’s remaining Defendants’ appeals are all dismissed.

(3) The costs of appeal under the preceding paragraph are assessed against the remaining Defendants except for the regular source of appeal.

The plaintiff's agent's grounds of appeal on the Jeon-chul are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

In this case, the amount indicated in the decision made by the Board of Audit and Inspection against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 is more than the amount claimed by the said Defendants as compensation for damages, and the judgment of the court below is not erroneous. If the judgment of the court below becomes final and conclusive as it is determined by the court below, it can be executed pursuant to the provisions of the disposition on default in accordance with Article 31(5) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for damages against the above two defendants is a case of party members (refer to Supreme Court Decision 62Da381 delivered on September 27, 1962). It is reasonable to view that there is no need for protection of rights unless there is any proof of special circumstances from the plaintiff from the plaintiff to the above two defendants (refer to Supreme Court Decision 62Da381 delivered on September 27, 1962.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

The court below acknowledged that the claim against the defendant 3 was reasonable, but it is clear that the defendant paid the whole amount embezzled by the defendant to the plaintiff Corporation. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is groundless.

However, there is no defense that Defendant 3 was summoned by service by public notice, and that he was fully repaid as a person not present at the date of pleading in the original instance.

As such, there is no defense of the Defendant’s repayment. The lower court recognized the defense of payment based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff. In light of the foregoing, it is difficult to avoid the lower court’s determination by disregarding the legal doctrine of constructive confession and denying the Plaintiff’s claim.

Therefore, the appeal against Defendant 3 among the judgment below is well-grounded, and thus, the part on this case against the defendant shall be reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court which rendered the judgment below.

3. On the third ground for appeal

The reasoning of the lower court is as follows: (a) the Defendants, other than the Defendants, do not peep the part that meets the period of damages and the period of guarantee of identity; and (b) the clear trace that the lower court urged the Plaintiff to prove with respect to the Plaintiff to produce evidence that is distinguishable from the damages to the part that is inconsistent with the period of damages and the period of guarantee of identity; (c) however, since the Plaintiff has the responsibility to prove the above point, the Plaintiff is liable for the burden of proof; (d) the Plaintiff is required to prove himself/herself without any means of proof; and (e) the record is insufficient to prove this point. As such, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the claim against the Defendants by the said nine Defendants was insufficient evidence. Since the authority to collect evidence is exclusively attached to the lower court, the lower court, which is a fact-finding court, and thus, the lower court did not err even if the Plaintiff’

The author argues that the process of fact-finding by the court below is only to criticize the process of fact-finding by the appropriate legal entity, without presenting such a basis. The court below's decision is not erroneous in the incomplete hearing.

Therefore, all appeals against the remaining Defendants except Defendant Jeong-won are without merit. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal against the Defendants are assessed against the Defendants.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court is Hong Dong-dong (Presiding Judge) and Dong-dong (Presiding Justice)