The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

With respect to No. 1:

In light of the records, the court below is justified in finding that the Defendants agreed to refund KRW 1,80,000,000 out of the amount of the guide fee of the substitute seat of this case to the Plaintiff by the 30th day of the next month for the same reasons as the original adjudication of November 7, 1978, and there is no illegality in recognizing facts without the evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or there is no error in the evaluation of evidence.

In addition, the principle of pleading is recognized only as to the principal facts and there is no application of indirect facts such as the background and proof, but the part of the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff did not assert is an indirect fact, and it is not deemed that the plaintiff submitted evidence No. 3-1 and No. 2 in the court below and submitted them. Thus, the court below acknowledged the facts of the theory as the premise of accepting the plaintiff's claim, and it cannot be said that there was an error of law that recognized the facts that the plaintiff did not assert like the theory of lawsuit. All arguments are

With respect to the second ground:

In this case, even if the plaintiff recognized the establishment of Eul evidence No. 1, and even if the above documentary evidence was calculated in duplicate and stated that the amount calculated as Eul evidence No. 1-3 is a legitimate amount and recognized as the delivery of the goods, it cannot be said that the court below did not complete the deliberation of the facts alleged in the judgment of the court below that the court below held that the defendants are liable to pay the amount stated in the judgment that they should return the above amount of the guide money under the facts stated in its reasoning, or did not contain any violation of documentary evidence or incomplete reasoning. In addition, according to the records, the court below rejected the testimony of the non-party witness who corresponds to the defendants' defense defense against Gap evidence No. 1 because the court below rejected the above defense of the defendants on the grounds that there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, and it cannot be said that there was an error of law by wrong evaluation of evidence by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the theory of lawsuit.

With respect to the third point:

As to the facts established by the court below, the defendants cannot be deemed as a defense that the defendants supplied the entire substitute stand to the plaintiff, and as long as the substitute stand delivered from the defendants did not have been used as defective goods unlike the initial agreement, the judgment of the court below does not err in the misapprehension of judgment or the lack of reasoning, and it cannot be said that there were any other errors in the omission of judgment or omission of reasoning, or omission of incomplete deliberation or omission of fact-finding. The arguments are without merit, since the evidence preparation and fact-finding, which belong to the exclusive authority of the court below, are attributable to all of them.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)