Article 298(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

According to the Section 1 of this Article, the applicant party is first examined. The purpose of this article is that the party who has the burden of proof should directly examine the witness and present it to the court by drawing his testimony to prove.

Article 298(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na11448 decided May 1, 201

Head of Thai and one other

Gwangju High Court Decision 62Na298 delivered on February 6, 1963

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s agent are examined in sequence.

(1) As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the court below concluded that, as a security deposit for the road construction contract of this case, 150,000 won (one hundred and fifty thousand won (one check) deposited to the contractor who is the contractor is not the contractor, but the contractor pays the contractor's own money for the plaintiff who is the contractor, and the construction was completed without any deviation, and thus, the contract owner who was the contractor was the contractor is entitled to return 150,000 won deposited to the defendant Kim Jong-sik who is the provider of the contract. However, even if the defendant Kim Jong-type paid the deposited money, such security deposit shall be deemed as owned by one contractor in light of the empirical rule even if it was paid by the contractor, and it is obvious that the bond would be returned to the contractor who is the contractor after the completion of the construction work, as well as that there was no defect or wage due to the contractor's fault after the completion of the construction work, the court below affirmed that the contractor's testimony was clearly erroneous after the completion of the construction work.

However, the court below acknowledged that the 150,000 won deposit of the construction in this case, which was received by Defendant Thai for the plaintiff who is the contractor, based on legitimate evidence, provided for the plaintiff who is the contractor, and unless there is any difference after the completion of this construction, this deposit is recognized as a special agreement to the defendant Kim Jong-type, the provider, and it does not seem that there is any error in its evidence, and it is nothing more than to criticize the legitimate fact-finding of the fact-finding without any reasonable ground for each argument.

Although the court below seems to have clearly rejected, among witness testimony, that there is no belief that the satisfys attacked particularly by the satisfys, it cannot be viewed as the rejection of the part of the judgment below, and there is no other evidence by the plaintiff who bears the burden of proof as to this point. There is no reason to see this issue.

(2) On the second ground of appeal, if the court below had exercised the right to ask for a witness's name and exercised the right to ask for a witness's name, the court below should first cause the defendant Kim Jong-type to pay the security deposit when the plaintiff performed the construction of this case, and thereafter, if the plaintiff could lead this Kim Jong-type to 142,261 won in return for the repayment of the money he saw to this Kim Jong-type, the result of the court below's decision is different, and it is a mistake that the court below did not reach such a result.

According to Article 298(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, a witness is to be examined first by the applicant party. The purpose of the examination is that the party who has the burden of proof should be presented to the court by questioning the witness and drawing the witness to prove himself/herself. However, according to the records, since it is apparent that he/she is the witness of the plaintiff who is the appellant, he/she is the appellant, he/she will be examined and presented to the court, and then he/she will not do so, but he/she will be able to see his/her mistake as an unexercise of the court's right to request the name, and it is difficult to recognize that the court below's non-exercise of the right to request the name, on the ground that the court below did not ask him/her for a substitute attack, and therefore, it is difficult to acknowledge that it

Accordingly, the appeal on this case is dismissed on the grounds that it is groundless, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Madon Pung-sapon Madon Lee Ho-man