임대료
The judgment below
The part against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Jeju District Court Panel Division.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document unless there is any reflective proof, and shall not reject it without reasonable explanation. However, even in the case of a disposal document, if it is recognized that there is an express or implied agreement different from the content of the document, it may recognize facts different from the content of the document, and in interpreting the legal act of the originator, it may be freely determined as evidence to the extent that it does not contravene the empirical and logical rules.
(2) On April 13, 2006, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, accepted only a part of the Plaintiff’s claim for gas sales proceeds, on the ground that there were no special circumstances to see that the Plaintiff’s unit price of the prop gas to be supplied to the Defendant is different from the “200 won/km” as indicated in the instant transfer and takeover agreement, which is a disposal document, on April 13, 2006.
3. However, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the following circumstances are revealed that the Plaintiff agreed to supply professional gas to the Defendants “200 won/km” as stated in the instant transfer and acquisition agreement, and that it is contradictory to various anti-proof facts that are difficult to accept in light of logical and empirical rules.
① At the time of the conclusion of the instant transfer/acquisition agreement with the Defendants, the Plaintiff was supplied prote gas from staticly similar in terms of “1,274.40 won/km.” On the record, the Plaintiff cannot be seen as having found the reasons for supplying the Defendants at a low unit price compared to the unit price that the Defendants provided. As above, the Plaintiff is the Defendants.