beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.02.09 2015나41692

약정금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of this case is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment of the court of first instance under paragraph (2) below. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence

2. The plaintiff added the following circumstances: (a) Gap evidence Nos. 3 (the document of this case, the date of preparation, August 20, 2013; hereinafter referred to as the "certificate") is merely a document that the defendant has obtained a certificate prepared under the name of the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "written confirmation of this case") and the plaintiff asserts that there was no agreement with the defendant; (b) the plaintiff asserted that there was no agreement with the defendant, and (c) the witness of the first instance court, including the statement Nos. 4 and the testimony of the witness of the first instance trial, may be recognized by the evidence mentioned above; (d) the witness of the first instance court prepared a written confirmation (the contents of the written confirmation of this case) at the court of first instance with the plaintiff's request, and (e) presented it to the defendant (the contents of the written confirmation of this case) with the defendant's consent (the contents of the written confirmation of this case); and (e) the plaintiff was present at the police station of this case with the plaintiff's testimony of this case 201 and 30.

In full view of the fact that the above agreement appears to mean the certificate of this case, it can be recognized that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the document of this case was prepared under the sole name of the defendant.

The plaintiff's assertion is reasonable, since the defendant's sole obtaining certification of the letter of confirmation of this case is not different.