The case where the failure to exercise the right to ask for the name of a person is found to be erroneous in the hearing.

The case where the failure to exercise the right to ask for the name of a person is found to be erroneous in the hearing.

Article 126 of the Civil Procedure Act

Kim Chang-chul

Manman, 1 other than 1

Seoul High Court Decision 62Na365, 366 decided June 22, 1962

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney are as follows.

The court below acknowledged that the plaintiff paid the defendants a gold amount of 3.1.8 million won to the defendants, and that the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security under the name of the mortgagee No. 1 and the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security under the name of the mortgagee No. 2 with a gold amount of 700,000 won equal to that of the defendant No. 2 on this real estate, was made, and that the plaintiff paid a gold amount of 2.170,000 won to the defendants as part of the above 3.1880,000 won with the testimony of the evidence No. 2. 4 and the witness Park Jong-chul, it is clear in the judgment that the plaintiff paid the above amount of 2.70,000 won to the defendants according to the order of payment that was applied in the name of the defendant No. 2,700,000,0000 won, and that the defendant No. 2,000,0000 won was stated as evidence No. 272,000,00.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges in accordance with Articles 406 and 400 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-Ma-man (Presiding Judge) Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man