Whether the financial witness who has not been prepared as a preparatory document in the sole case may be investigated as the absence of the other party and adopted as evidence.

In a single case, it is not erroneous in the case where the other party has taken an examination of evidence as a witness of finance and adopted as evidence, without attending the date for pleading, a witness who is not entered in the briefs in advance pursuant to the proviso of Articles 251 and 246 of the Civil Procedure Act

Gangwon-hee

Heung-Jin Law Firm (Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 74Na374 delivered on September 19, 1974

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As to the Defendant’s Attorney’s ground of appeal:

However, although the court below's application for examination of evidence was made as a financial witness in the hearing of September 5, 1974 without a prior statement in the preparatory documents and without the defendant's attendance, the court below's examination of this case and adopted it as evidence at the hearing of the party, but this case was only a case, so there is no error of law as to whether the above financial witness was examined and adopted as evidence under the proviso of Article 251 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 246 of the same Act. The arguments

Therefore, according to Articles 400, 395, and 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Rin- Port (Presiding Justice)