Omission of determination on fact-finding and evidence in violation of the gist of evidence

Despite the fact that the testimony that does not correspond to the whole purport of the testimony and that of the plaintiff's assertion was used as a comprehensive evidence, and the fact that the defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant's assertion was rejected in the past, it was against the rules of evidence and the purport of the party's pleading, and it was rejected the judgment of evidence that there was no evidence to reverse the fact that the plaintiff's assertion was admitted by the evidence and the purport of the party's pleading.

Mental instruments;

Attorney Shin Jae-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Gwangju District Court of the first instance, the Gwangju High Court of the second instance, the Gwangju High Court of November 18, 1952 52 Civil Code7 decided November 18, 195

The original judgment shall be destroyed, and this case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The ground of appeal No. 1 by the defendant's representative was erroneous in the application of the law. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of law. (The defendant, like the plaintiff's head, determined that it was impossible to employ the defendant as the person who did not have different facts, but did not have different facts and agreed that the defendant would not have violated the public order and good customs, and that the transfer of ownership would be ordered at the same time upon the expiration of the time of the time of the registration of this case's real estate). The appraisal of 1.9 million won (the real estate price at the time of this case's transfer of ownership would be at least 5 million won) is limited, and the contract that loses ownership as a small claim, would be in violation of the public order and good customs, and the judgment of the court below stated that the contract would be null and void due to the violation of the public order and good customs, and that the plaintiff's acceptance of this contract would not be justified in the application of Article 90 of the Civil Act.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the violation of the rules of evidence and the lack of reasons. Since the plaintiff alleged that the real estate was provided as security by means of transfer for 9.60,000 won added 1.60,000 won to the principal amount to 800,000 won, and the defendant agreed to borrow 10,000 won from the non-party debt 10,000 won, and borrowed 4.90,000 won from the non-party debt 2 to the non-party debt 10,000 won (5,000 won on the face of 5,000 won on the face of 10,000 won on the face of 10,000 won on the face of 5,000 won on the face of 2,000 won on the face of 5,000 won on the face value of the principal, the amount of the loan can be confirmed by the agreement between the non-party 2 and the non-party 15,00,00,000 won on the face value.

The court below acknowledged that the defendant's statement Nos. 1 and 2 was without dispute between the parties as to the witness's testimony and establishment of the non-party's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's 10.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)