The case holding that it is against the rules of evidence to recognize a person who is not a construction contractor as a purchaser of construction materials required at the construction site.

If the construction material supplied by the Defendant was required for the construction site for the extension of the construction site, the buyer of the construction material shall be deemed the construction contractor, barring special circumstances. However, according to the records, the construction contractor Gap and the Plaintiff is merely his employer, and the Plaintiff’s husband Eul’s testimony and the Plaintiff would pay the price to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff sold the construction material on credit to the Plaintiff (in any relationship between the construction work and the construction work, the Plaintiff did not review whether the construction material was purchased on credit from the Defendant) is the buyer of the above construction material, and the court below’s decision that recognized the Plaintiff as the buyer of the above construction material is in violation of the rules of evidence or it erred in the incomplete deliberation.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 665 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Daegu High Court Decision 87Na1549 delivered on May 2, 1989

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In full view of the following facts: (a) evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 3 (Transaction Nos. 4-1, 3 (Transaction Sign and Contents); (b) testimony at the first instance court and at the lower court’s trial; and (c) testimony at Nonparty 2 of the lower trial witness at the lower court’s trial, the Defendant, from February 1, 1986 to September 9, 1986, sold false construction materials on credit to the Plaintiff, and sold them on credit, and then there remains KRW 7,407,70. The lower court accepted the Defendant’s defense that the Plaintiff’s credit payment claim offsets the Plaintiff’s claim against the instant construction payment claim.

According to the testimony at the court of first and second instance of the above witness non-party 1, the witness non-party 1 and the defendant, as his husband and wife, sold the building materials to be used in the construction site of ○○○○ Construction from February 1, 1986 to September 9 of the same year as the plaintiff, on credit between the plaintiff and the non-party 3, but the above non-party 3 had no credit. The plaintiff continued to supply the building materials to the plaintiff by making payment of the credit amount to the plaintiff. The counter-party 4-1 (transaction Book No. 4-1), which is the transaction book with the above transaction statement, also entered the counter-party 1 and his telephone number, but the above non-party 1 deleted the non-party 3 and was named the plaintiff's name. Among the witness, there is no content about the testimony between the plaintiff and the non-party 2.

Meanwhile, according to the testimony of Nonparty 3 (a construction contract), Nos. 3 (a certificate), 4 (a written confirmation), 5 (a contract), 6 (a contract), and Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 3 of the court of first instance, who were rejected by the court below, Nonparty 3, a construction business operator, was awarded a contract for construction work of the above ○○○○○○ Construction Work and the construction work of the national housing bonds from February 1986 to September 9 of the same year, purchased necessary construction materials on credit from the defendant, and employed the plaintiff as 12,00 won per day and worked as the site manager of the construction work. On July 10, 1986, the plaintiff continued to receive the construction materials from the defendant for several construction sites in the name of Nonparty 3, a construction business operator (a construction and credit transaction were continued until September 9).

If the construction material supplied by the defendant was required for the construction site of the above construction site, the buyer of the construction material shall be deemed to be the construction contractor unless there are special circumstances. However, the court below rejected all the above evidence to the purport that the contractor is the non-party 3 and the plaintiff was not an employee. It does not examine whether the plaintiff purchased the construction material on credit from the defendant in a certain relationship with the construction work, but did not regard it as the defendant's husband's testimony that the above non-party 1 jointly manages the above construction material with the defendant as the defendant's husband, i.e., the above non-party 3's testimony that the plaintiff would pay the price to the plaintiff on credit, and thus, it is against the rules of evidence or found that the above non-party 3 violated the rules of evidence or violated the law of incomplete deliberation. It is therefore justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)