Nature of form of order issued in respect of existing obligations

Unless there is a special agreement between the parties on the existing obligation, it would be presumed that the existing obligation has been issued by the method of securing or paying the obligation.

Articles 482 and 513 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant (Attorney Han-hee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Jeonju District Court of the first instance, Gwangju High Court of the second instance, 55 civil air352 delivered on March 20, 1956

The final appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Defendant 1’s ground of appeal No. 1 ruled that the court below’s decision was reversed on the ground that the court below’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 4’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 3 witness Nonparty 1’s non-party 3’s non-party 3’s non-party 4’s non-party 4’s non-party 2’s non-party 4’s non-party 1’s non-party 4’s non-party 2’s non-party 4’s non-party 2’s non-party 4’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 4’s non-party 2’s non-party 4’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 4’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 3’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party.

In the event that a form of promise was issued with respect to the existing obligation, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, it shall be presumed that the obligation should be issued in the manner of securing and paying the obligation, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. According to the records and the original judgment, the non-party 4 was liable to the non-party 2 for the amount of gold 125,000 repayment, and the non-party 4 issued the same amount of promise on December 10, 4287, and the non-party 7, January 7, 4288 was assigned to the plaintiff with the consent of the debtor. Therefore, even if the non-party 4-2 of the lawsuit No. 4, which is the letter of promise, the letter of promise, was transferred to the plaintiff with the consent of the debtor, it does not affect the conclusion of the original judgment. Therefore, even if the court below rejected the defendant's evidentiary method and did not complete the deliberation, it cannot be admitted as a ground for appeal.

The court below's second ground for appeal is that the defendant's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 4's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-

However, since evidence cooking and fact-finding belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, they cannot be charged unless they are contrary to the logical rules or the empirical rules. In this case, in full view of each evidence in the original judgment, the defendant can have pride on the fact that he assumed the obligation to the plaintiff of the non-party 4, who is his wife, and the non-party 2 did not affect the non-party 4 due to the issuance of promise acceptance, it is equal to that of the non-party 2. Therefore, it is not valid to offset the amount of the non-party 4's basic obligation against the defendant's obligation to pay the remainder of the non-party 4 with the obligation to pay the remainder of the non-party 4 with the obligation to pay the remainder of the non-party 4 with the obligation to pay the remainder of the non-party 2 cannot be adopted.

Therefore, this appeal is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition in accordance with Articles 401, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Kim Dong-dong (Presiding Justice) Acting Justice Kim Jae-ho on the present allocation of Kim Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)