주권인도
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except for the addition of “decision on the grounds of appeal 4. Appellate” as set forth in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, on the 22th day above the 15th day of the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. In addition, the Plaintiff misapprehending the legal principles on the authenticity of documents and the probative value of the disposal document as to the summary of the grounds for appeal regarding the grounds for appeal of April 2, 2008 as evidence supporting the facts constituting the grounds for appeal of this case (Evidence A2-1), a written agreement dated December 24, 2008 (Evidence A3-1), a receipt of December 24, 2008 (Evidence A4 and 5), a confirmation of facts as of January 2, 2009 (Evidence A6), a written statement as of January 2, 2009 (Evidence A7), receipts as of January 22, 2009 (Evidence 8), and receipts as of January 22, 2009 (Evidence A), No. 2000,No. 29 (Evidence A), No. 1920, Jan. 23, 2009 (Evidence No. 10, No. 1920, Nov. 14, 2009).
Inasmuch as the Defendant’s signature recorded in the instant settlement statement, etc. is recognized as the same as the Defendant’s penology as the result of the written appraisal by the O of the first instance trial appraiser, it is recognized that formal authenticity has been established, and as such, it is recognized that the Defendant and E’s seal affixed on the said document are the same as the Defendant’s penology, barring any special circumstance, it is presumed that the entire document was sealed by the Defendant’
On the other hand, in a case where the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, unless there is clear and acceptable evidence, it should be recognized that there was an expression of intent according to the content of the document.
The first instance judgment denies the formal authenticity of the instant settlement statement, etc. and without clear and acceptable reflective evidence.