The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Of the grounds of appeal, the argument that the judgment of the chief Justice of the Gyeonggi-do is justified is merely an error in the selection of evidence and the determination of the value of evidence belonging to the free trial of the fact-finding court, which are the basis of the judgment of the court below.

Furthermore, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

Of the grounds of appeal, the allegation that the instant athletic contract constitutes a juristic act in anti-social order as stipulated in Article 103 of the Civil Act, and that the lower court did not verify the authenticity of the instant athletic rules, which led to the final appeal, cannot be deemed a legitimate ground of appeal.

Furthermore, even in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the instant sports contract cannot be deemed to constitute a juristic act against social order.

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 on the bench.