Where the parties have filed an application for resumption of oral proceedings to assert and prove it after the closing of oral proceedings, the standard of determining whether to accept such application

Article 142 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 2010Da20532 Decided October 28, 2010 (Gong2010Ha, 2157)

IMA partnership loan limited company (trade name before the change: IMA partnership limited company)

Defendant 1 and two others (Law Firm citizen, Attorneys Lee Young-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na26822 decided January 21, 2011

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that each written consent in the name of Defendant Kim Jong-hae was not forged, and there was no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical

2. A. A. Where a party has filed an application for resumption of oral proceedings to assert and prove after the closing of oral arguments, the court may decide in its discretion whether to accept the application for resumption of oral proceedings, unless it violates procedural justice pursued by the Civil Procedure Act, such as where the party who filed the application for resumption of oral proceedings did not have the opportunity to assert and prove due to the reasons for which it was difficult to impose liability on him/her before the closing of oral arguments, and where the subject matter of such assertion and certification falls under the facts requiring documentary evidence that can depend on the outcome of the judgment, etc.

B. According to the records, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff was aware of the transfer of the instant loan claims to a new mutual savings bank before the closing of argument, and filed an application for resumption of pleadings to assert and prove the transfer of claims, but the lower court did not accept such application.

B. The transferor, who had met the requirements for setting up against the obligor after the assignment of the claim, still has the status of creditor and can file a judicial claim against the debtor (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du20109, Feb. 12, 2009). Thus, in this case where the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of the assignment of claim or there is no evidence that the Defendants consented to the assignment of claim, even if the Plaintiff transferred the claim, the Plaintiff is in a position to file a judicial claim against the Defendants as a creditor.

Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the grounds for resumption of argument alleged by the Defendants are not cases where the subject matter of argument or certification falls under the objective facts that can determine the outcome of the judgment, and there is no circumstance to deem that the lower court did not give the Defendants an opportunity to assert or prove by resumption of argument, contrary to the procedural justice pursued by the Civil Procedure Act.

C. Therefore, the decision of the court below which rejected the defendants' application for resumption of oral argument is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the resumption of oral argument as otherwise alleged in the

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Il-young (Presiding Justice)