Article 188 of the Civil Procedure Act where a certificate of custody has been submitted as evidence for the assertion of a loan, and where it is recognized as a deposited bond

Since it is not deemed that the argument that the loan is a deposit money when the certificate of custody was submitted as evidence of the assertion of the loan, it cannot be viewed that the court below recognized that the deposit money claim was a deposit money claim is just and therefore, it cannot be said that the judgment was made on the matters not

Article 188 of the Civil Procedure Act

Kim Jong-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 20

Busan District Court Decision 66Na459 delivered on May 26, 1967

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the Defendant’s agent’s grounds of appeal.

According to the facts established by the court below, KRW 150,00 of the money as a problem of this case was deposited with the defendant at the beginning of the loan, and the process of documentary evidence was not deposited with the defendant as argued by the plaintiff. Upon examining the records, it is not thought that there is an unlawful cause for documentary evidence as stated in the above facts. According to the witness non-party 1, who is employed as evidence by the court below, the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in this case, the plaintiff's claim in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in 10.

The court below is just in holding that the claim against the defendant of the non-party 1 is a deposit money claim, and therefore the judgment of the court below shall not be deemed to have been judged as to the non-party 1's non-party 1's claim, and the judgment of the court below shall not be deemed to have been made. And as seen above, the defendant has already paid 150,000 won in value to the Korea Electric Power Company for his own own own own use and there is no reason to extinguish the obligation to return the deposited money. The court below is just in holding that the court below has a duty to return the deposited money of 150,000 won to the defendant. It shall not be said that there is an error in the omission of judgment or the lack of reason as stated in the arguments. In addition, the judgment of the court below shall not be said that there is an unlawful ground of law by misjudgmenting the judgment of evidence or abusing the authority to prepare evidence which has been found by improper evidence. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court is Hong Dong-dong (Presiding Judge) and Dong-dong (Presiding Justice)