The nature of a tort, if the purpose of the contract is not achieved at the same time through the so-called internal bonds of redemption;

The non-speed of the fact that the performance of a contract is to be done or the new one is to be done does not clearly explain the fundamental principles and nature of the contract scientificly, but it has been established under the premise of mental and non-receptic world, such as so far as the meaning or subject of the contract is not within the scope of objectively recognizable logic, rather than within the scope of objectively recognizable logic. Thus, it is most intended to directly or indirectly participate in the process rather than demanding the achievement of any objective result. In exceptional cases where it is conditioned to achieve the objective of the contract, it is impossible for the implementer (such as without fault, etc.) to act without delay to achieve such objective objectively (e.g., the intention to make it impossible to make the contract objectively, and as long as it is intended to achieve such objective, it is impossible to deem the new one to have the right to demand the performance of the contract to be done without the consent of the new one, even if it is not known that the new one did not have the right to demand the performance of the contract.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 4292 Form 321 Delivered on June 8, 1960

Plaintiff

Defendant

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 13,800,000 won with 25% interest per annum from the day following the service of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant and provisional execution.

In light of the above purport of the Plaintiff’s testimony that Nonparty 1 and 2 took place in the name of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 (excluding the part that was not trusted to Nonparty 1’s testimony), the Plaintiff cannot be seen as having come to know that the Plaintiff would have come to know of the Plaintiff’s new life on August 10, 198, and that the Plaintiff would not have come to know of the fact that he would have come to know of the fact that he would have come to know of the Plaintiff’s new life, and that he would not have come to know of the fact that he would have come to know of the Plaintiff’s new life, and that he would have come to know of the fact that he would have come to know of the Plaintiff’s new life, and that the Plaintiff would have come to know of the fact that he would have come to know of the Plaintiff’s new life, and that he would have come to know of the fact that he would have come to know of the Plaintiff’s new life on around September 16, 200.

The plaintiff is the cause of the claim of this case. First, since the defendant suffered from urology, etc. at the time, and is missing, the defendant deceivings the plaintiff without knowledge of his ability to make a new urine through the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right, the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the deposit, the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the deposit, the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the deposit, and the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the claim of the plaintiff, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the total sum of 13,800,000 won, such as the money and consolation money that the plaintiff incurred due to the above unlawful act, and second, the defendant did not perform the right of the right of the right.

However, such as the transfer of rights or the issuance of new instruments does not sufficiently explain the fundamental principles or character of the deceased. However, it is established under the premise that the meaning or object of the transfer of rights is in the category of objectively recognizable logic, rather than within the scope of objectively recognizable logic. Thus, it is most intended for the Plaintiff to directly or indirectly participate in the exercise of rights, rather than requiring the achievement of the objective of the transfer of rights. In exceptional cases where it is conditioned to achieve the objective of the transfer of rights, the implementer (i.e., the 8th anniversary of the transfer of rights, the preparation of the books, etc.) to achieve that objective. Unless the purpose of the transfer of rights is to achieve this objective, the Defendant’s act without fault to the Plaintiff, for instance (i.e., the 9th anniversary of the transfer of rights, and the execution of the rights of trust, etc.) to the public, and (ii) it cannot be acknowledged that the Plaintiff had the right of the transfer of rights without fault to the public.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the defendant is liable for tort or default, is without merit, and therefore, it is dismissed, and the costs of this case are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Jin-young (Presiding Judge)