선금 보증금 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are justifiable even if the evidence presented by the plaintiff was presented to the court of first instance.
Therefore, this court's reasoning is written partially as follows, and it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for adding the judgment identical to that of paragraph (2) to the part newly asserted by the plaintiff in this court. Thus, this court's reasoning is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
An abbreviationd name established in the judgment of the first instance is also used below the same.
[Supplementary part] The "unpaid amount" of the last parallel inside the upper end of the fifth upper end of the judgment of the first instance and the last parallel inside the sixth surface map shall be added to each "paid amount".
Part 7 of the judgment of the first instance court, the agreement was reached in Part 3, which read as "(hereinafter referred to as "the instant direct payment agreement")."
On the 7th page of the judgment of the first instance, the first instance court notified "......" The above notification reached B on December 28, 2016."
Under the 9th judgment of the first instance, the second written evidence "As. 1, 7, 8, 10 through 15" shall be written with "As. 1 through 15".
Under the 9th judgment of the first instance court, the "10 Nos. 10 (including the number of pages)" shall be added to "10, 11 (including each number of pages; hereinafter the same shall apply)".
Under the 10th judgment of the court of first instance, “The above facts have been found to have occurred,” the following facts were stated as “The plaintiff was notified on December 27, 2016 that he had withdrawn even from the joint contractors of this case, and the notification reached B on December 28, 2016, and that B would have caused a cause to return advance payment after withdrawing from the joint contractors of this case.”
2. The plaintiff's assertion in this court is relevant.