beta
Text
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
Reasons
1. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to a retrial is apparent or obvious in records in this court.
In the case of damages claim filed against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, “E,” by falsely replyed that KRW 15,00,000 of the outstanding bill price deposited in the mutual savings and finance company account of the Defendant’s military place of origin was deposited in “the distribution place method” before the date when the Defendant opened the Defendant’s military place of origin, thereby embezzlement the said money and causing serious damages to the Plaintiff. As part of the damages claim, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 28,00,000 as part of the damages amount, namely, sought reimbursement of KRW 28,00,000 from the Jeonju District Court’s Military Branch Branch as 15307, and the said court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on April 1, 2014 on the ground that the tort committed by the Defendant’s embezzlement is not recognized.
(hereinafter “Judgment of the first instance court”). (b)
The Plaintiff appealed to the judgment of the first instance court as the Jeonju District Court 2014Na3576, and the said court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on November 20, 2014.
(hereinafter referred to as the "case subject to review") c.
On January 21, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed to the judgment subject to a retrial and appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2014Da88796. On January 21, 2015, the lower court, “The Review Decision, unlike the fact, was based on the fact, on the fact that the amount of the instant insolvent bill deposited in the “defacing method” was deposited in the distribution place, and was deposited in the distribution place in the above amount of KRW 15,00,000, and the Plaintiff consented to obtain a loan under the name of the Plaintiff to E, etc., and then did not adopt as evidence the Defendant’s written reply, etc. recognizing the commission of the tort, thereby violating the rules of evidence. However, the Supreme Court, on March 27, 2015, filed the final appeal to the effect that the Defendant violated the rules of evidence because it did not adopt as evidence the Defendant’s written reply, etc. recognizing the commission of the tort.