The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the plaintiff's assertion was not properly clarified and failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the plaintiff's claim for the purchase price of goods against the defendant was affirmed by offsetting the claim for the purchase price of goods against Eul by the check amount and other claims against Eul on the premise that the plaintiff acquired the purchase price of the goods by transfer, and the person who actually supplied the goods to the defendant is not Gap but Eul, the court below should have deliberated on whether the plaintiff's claim for the purchase price of the goods directly supplied to the defendant, in addition to the argument that Gap acquired the claim for the purchase price of the goods directly supplied to the defendant by the defendant Eul, and if such assertion is included, the claim for the purchase price of the goods directly supplied to the defendant against the defendant Eul was lawfully transferred from Eul to the plaintiff from Eul, whether the claim for the purchase price of goods against the defendant Eul was legally extinguished due to the defendant's declaration of set-off by the defendant.

Articles 126 and 183 of the Civil Procedure Act

Chang Steel Co., Ltd., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Lee Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant in the limited partnership company

Suwon District Court Decision 93Na11224 delivered on August 17, 1994

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) In light of the records, the court below's rejection of the above goods on the ground that according to Gap evidence Nos. 3-1, 2 (each tax invoice) and Eul evidence Nos. 4 (No. 4), and Eul evidence Nos. 5 (the notice of claim transfer) and witness Nos. 1 as shown in the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party corporation Eul-dong Co., Ltd. (the non-party company) supplied the goods of this case to the defendant, according to the witness's testimony, it is hard to believe that the person who supplied the above goods to the defendant is not the non-party company but the non-party No. 1, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the disposition documents such as the theory of lawsuit.

(2) The lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for the transfer of the instant amount on the ground that the Nonparty Company supplied the Defendant with the instant goods on the ground that the lower court did not have any evidence to acknowledge otherwise, except the evidence that the lower court believed otherwise, and that the person who supplied the instant goods to the Defendant was found to have been aware of the existence of the claim for the purchase of the instant goods against the Defendant of the Nonparty Company on the ground that the Nonparty Company received the claim for the purchase of the instant goods

According to the records, although the plaintiff alleged that the defendant supplied the above goods to the non-party company was the non-party company, the plaintiff's above argument that the non-party 1 supplied the above goods to the defendant, but the non-party 1's tax invoice Nos. 3 and 2 (tax invoice) was not important for each supplier to whom the above goods were supplied, and the supplier received the above tax invoice without any objection. The above non-party 1 entered into a contract on the transfer of the above goods to the non-party company and notified the defendant of the transfer of the above claim Nos. 4 and 5. The non-party 1 transferred the above goods to the non-party 1 and the non-party 1's claim against the non-party 9 was presented to the non-party 1 as evidence, and the non-party 1 notified the defendant of the above claim against the non-party 1 based on the premise that the non-party 1 transferred the above goods' claim against the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 and the defendant's claim against the above transfer price.

Nevertheless, the court below did not take such measures as above and rejected the plaintiff's claim of this case simply for the reasons stated in its reasoning, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations due to the failure to properly explain the plaintiff's assertion, and therefore, the ground for appeal pointing this out has merit.

(3) Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)