Article 607, Paragraph 608, of the Civil Code, the scope of the application

The provisions of this Article and Article 608 of this Act shall apply only to the reservation, etc. of the return of substitutes for loans for consumption.

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff (Attorney Gyeong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Lee Jae-cheon, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 63Na120, 121 delivered on February 28, 1964

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff).

The gist of the Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 1 is not only error in the judgment of evidence, but also error in incomplete deliberation, or lack of reason. The Plaintiff’s total amount of the Plaintiff’s credit could not be calculated clearly, and there is no evidence other than the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the claim for Trade Union. According to the Plaintiff’s note, the total amount of the credit is KRW 81,423, and the total amount of the credit amount is KRW 81,432, and the Defendant’s name is KRW 81,432, despite the fact that the Defendant’s name is Park Jong-man, the evidence No. 2 is Park Jong-chul and the Plaintiff was employed as a genuine agent even though the Plaintiff was unaware of the Plaintiff’s extension of the return of the credit amount by drinking alcohol by September 15, 295.

On December 12, 1960, the court below reviewed the judgment of the court below by comparing the records. On December 12, 1960, the plaintiff was able to recognize the fact that the plaintiff received the right to claim the return of the 293,720 exchange for the 20th century which the non-party who was the defendant's wife at 15 times joined 15 times and the 293,720 exchange for the 15th century, and the whole purport of the plaintiff's argument on the record is the same as that of the evidence, and it does not include the same purport as that of the plaintiff's argument, and there is a difference between the theory of claim indication and the theory of claim indication as the total amount of claims, but it is merely an error as the second part of the judgment of the court below, and it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment of the court below. The appeal is without merit.

The gist of the ground of appeal No. 2 is that the court below recognized the validity of the substitute payment contract at the time of the contract is unfair, and it is clear that the amount equivalent to KRW 223,00 at the original contract price at the original contract at the time of the contract is equivalent to KRW 223,00,00 as a result of the original appraisal of the court below, and the evidence No. 2 of the case No. 2 was unmannedd after the plaintiff et al.'s invitation of drinking, and the defendant took over his wife's obligation, and the total amount to be returned to the plaintiff is unclear, etc., the substitute payment contract at issue is null and void by an unfair legal act pursuant to Article 104 of the Civil Code. The summary of the ground of appeal No. 3 of the same ground of appeal is not limited to the loan for consumption, but it is erroneous in the interpretation of Article 607,608 of the Civil Code, and it is also applied to the promise to return the substitute debt and any other debt.

I think, the provision of Article 607 of the Civil Code and the provision of Article 608 of the Civil Code as to the reservation of the return of substitute goods under Article 607 of the Civil Code and the provision of Article 608 of the Civil Code are stipulated not only in the loan for consumption under Section 5 of the contract, but also in the loan, such provision is interpreted to apply only to the reservation of the return of substitute goods concerning the loan for consumption. In this case, since the reservation of substitute goods between the defendant and the plaintiff was made by the defendant's wife, it cannot be said that the promise of the return of substitute goods is a promise of the return of substitute goods arising from the loan for consumption with the above opinion of the court below, and it cannot be said that the plaintiff's claim was accepted on the premise of the above opinion, and it cannot be said that the plaintiff's claim was finally accepted on the ground that it was not an unfair transaction such as the theory of evidence.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Supreme Court Judge Ma-man (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)