Whether the recognition of the fact of repayment goes against the rule of experience in cases where a debtor has received receipts, or failed to recover or renew bills, which is a certificate of claim, when he/she has repaid his/her high-amount obligations several times, and where he/she has paid interest continuously for two years after he/she was aware of the failure to repay (affirmative

Unless special circumstances are acknowledged, recognizing the fact of repayment are contrary to the empirical rule, inasmuch as it is difficult for the general public to recognize that the debtor received receipts, or did not withdraw or open a bill, which is a certificate of claim, when he/she has repaid 5,00,000 won or 10,000 won in many times, and that he/she continued to pay interest for two years or more with the knowledge that he/she has not repaid the bill.

Articles 474 and 475 of the Civil Act, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jae-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Attorney Lee Jong-ok et al., Counsel for the defendant

Kim Byung-nam et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Jeonju District Court Decision 85Na497 delivered on March 24, 1988

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the above amount of KRW 10,000 on October 13, 1981 and KRW 10,00 on the above amount of KRW 10,00 on the 20-year interest rate of KRW 10,000 on the 30-year interest rate of KRW 10,000 on the 10-year interest rate of KRW 20,000 on the 10-year interest rate of KRW 10,000 on the 10-year interest rate of KRW 20,000,000 on the 10-year interest rate of KRW 10,00,000 on the 10-year interest rate of KRW 20,000 on the 10-year interest rate of KRW 10,00,000 on the 10-year interest rate of KRW 10,000 on the 10-year interest rate of KRW 10,000,00.

2. However, it is extremely common that a debtor who borrowed money has not received a receipt in the course of repaying the borrowed money to the creditor, or left it in the number of creditors who did not collect or reform the certificate of credit such as the certificate of loan or the bill issued to the creditor with respect to the borrowed money. Moreover, barring any special circumstance, recognition of the fact that the debtor continued to pay the receipt or the bill of credit for more than two years, just because the debtor did not receive the certificate of credit, or did not receive the certificate of credit, or did not check the certificate of credit, or did not collect or open the certificate of credit for several times, as in this case, and it is difficult for the general public to accept the fact that the debtor continued to pay the receipt and the bill of credit for more than two years, just because it is difficult to do so. Thus, barring any special circumstance where it is acceptable to accept the fact that the debtor could not receive the receipt, collect or open the certificate of credit, or that the certificate of credit was already not repaid.

However, examining the major contents of evidence supporting the above recognition of the court below among the evidence admitted by the court below based on the record, it is deemed that the above special circumstances are insufficient to recognize credibility as follows.

(1) The statement and written statement (Evidence Nos. 2-5, 4, 10, 13-2 through 4, 6, 9, 10, 16, 18, 25-6, 26-6, and 26-6) of the same evidence.

The above defendant is not only a person in conflict of interest with the plaintiff as to the repayment of the dispute amount of this case as the debtor himself. According to the records, the above defendant continued to engage in lending and borrowing transactions from around 1979 to around 20 million won, and issued promissory notes with a loan certificate at each time of transaction and collected or opened them at each time. Thus, the above defendant's statement that the defendant paid money without recovering or opening the bill of this case only for the repayment of the dispute amount of this case.

Furthermore, the above defendant discovered errors in repayment around September 10, 1983 (see evidence 2-3 of this Act). Without stating such errors, it is difficult to understand that the above defendant paid 10 million won to the non-party prize to the non-party prize in lieu of the prize pay for the plaintiff on June 27, 1984, and 10 million won to the plaintiff on October 10, 1983. Thus, it is difficult to understand that the above defendant's statement has no credibility.

(2) Statement and statement of Park Nam-hee (Evidence B, 8, 13-1, 11, 49-3, 5, 6, 53-4 of the same Act).

From October 1983, the summary of the above Park Nam-hee's statement was presented to the Lee Jong-hee's House of 10 million won, such as the defendant Kim Byung-nam, and the above defendant appeared to have been present to pay 10 million won to the prize of the above defendant, and then he did not require a receipt for the above payment because the above prize of the above prize of the above prize of the prize of the above money cannot be suspended. However, the purport that the above prize of the prize of the above prize of the above money of the above money of the above money of the above money of the payment of the money of the amount of 10 million won was paid to the creditor in the early repayment of the debt of the money of the above money of the amount of 10 million won and the fact that the creditor did not demand a receipt or the collection of the bill of this money

Furthermore, according to the records, the above Park Nam-hee may be a witness who is almost the only direct witness in this case. The court below's third pleading date ( June 26, 1986. 10:00) was adopted as a witness on the defendant's side, but the summons was withdrawn on the 9th hearing date ( April 2, 1987. 14:00) and again, the defendant's witness was adopted on the 11th hearing date ( July 9, 1987. 100) and the 14th hearing date ( November 14:00), which was withdrawn from the 194th hearing date ( November 19, 1987. 14:00) and the examination of evidence was not implemented on the defendant's witness's failure to perform the examination procedure, and the contents of the above statement and the statement were not sufficiently reliable.

(3) The lower court’s testimony, the written statement, and the written statement (No. 6, No. 13-8, No. 22, No. 25-3, No. 27, and No. 49-4) on the same person (Evidence No. 6, No. 13-8, No. 22, and No. 25-3, No. 27, and No. 49-4). Since each of the written statements in the above Kim Young-Cuk case was the content that the Defendant Kim Byung-nam referred to the

(4) The testimony of the court below in Kim Jong-soo and the statement of statement, written statement (No. 26-11 of evidence No. 26), the testimony and written statement (No. 53-6 of the evidence No. 53-1), the testimony and written statement (No. 53-1 of the evidence No. 53-1) of the new person's testimony and written statement (No. 48-28 of the evidence No. 48).

At around 1983, the above Kim Jong-chul made a small statement to the defendant Kim Byung-nam's office at around 1983, which was 3 times (4 times in case of original testimony) and 2 years later at the investigative agency, and the believers went to the defendant Kim Byung-nam's office at around October 10, 1983, and the defendant and the non-party's office went to the above defendant's office on October 15, 1984, and Kim Jong-deok continued to go to the above defendant's office around 3 and 4 years, all the telephone conversationss between the above defendant and the above defendant's office were written in a written statement prepared after 3 and 4 years, and it is difficult to accept the above part of the defendant's office's statement that it was difficult to accept by the date and time or time, and each part of the defendant's office's oral statement that it was hard to recognize the credibility of the above part of the statement.

(5) Evidence No. 22 (as stated in evidence No. 26-93,94)

The records of Non-party 1,00,000 won in the bill of exchange issued on November 15, 1984 at the request of defendant Kim Byung-Nam include the part of "(20,000,000 won) issued on July 8, 1983 and 1,00,000 won in the bill of exchange issued on October 11, 84. (30,000 won as of October 11, 1984)". The records are submitted as evidence proving that the remaining amount of the bill of exchange was not only 20,000,000 won in the bill of exchange issued on July 8, 1983. However, according to the plaintiff's note, since the bill of exchange was already issued on October 10, 1983, the bill of exchange with the defendant Kim Byung-Nam's bill of exchange was confirmed to the purport that the remaining amount of the bill of exchange is not a face value of 1,000,000 won.

Although the court below did not have evidence, if Gap evidence No. 6-2 was written, the above present position is merely 20 million won in the bill collection book as of November 15, 1984 in relation to the above part of the pen when the prosecutor was investigated as an attempted crime of fraud (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 1406Da1406). However, in light of the above part of the pen, the above statement is merely 20 million won in the bill collection book (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20 million won in the face value), and it is supported by the evidence No. 5-1 (the reason for the second part).

(6) In addition, the evidence of the court below is found to be insufficient to support the defendants' assertion, even though there are other investigative agencies' investigation reports based on the above defendant's statement, including the money transaction log (No. 25-10, 11), the bookbook (No. 25-15, 16-2), the bookbook (No. 25-7, No. 25-7, No. 47-1, 2, and 51-2) prepared by the defendant Kim Byung-nam, or mainly on the basis of the above defendant's statement.

3. Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misunderstanding the value of evidence and affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which constitutes a ground for reversal under Article 12(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below as to other grounds of appeal is omitted, and the part against the plaintiff is reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)