보증금 청구의 소
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court acknowledged that the actual term of construction agreed upon in each of the instant subcontracting agreements was April 6, 2014, taking into account the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, and, on the other hand, determined that confessions were lawfully revoked on the grounds that the confessions were contrary to the truth and due to mistake, even if the Plaintiff alleged that the term of construction works for each of the instant subcontracting agreements was the end of July 2013.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below are justifiable.
In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the revocation of confession, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s defense of revocation of each of the above guarantee agreements on the grounds that it is insufficient to recognize that the construction of the Eastern Industry, Inc., by deceiving the Defendant with respect to its financial capacity, such as wages and material costs in arrears, concluded each of the second and fourth guarantee agreements of this case, and that the Plaintiff knew or could have known the deception of the construction of the East Industries
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is justifiable.
In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the contractor’s duty of disclosure and the legal principles regarding
3. The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.