beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against Defendant B is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the grounds of appeal against Defendant A, the court shall determine whether the assertion of facts is true in accordance with logical and empirical rules, taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings and the results of the examination of evidence, on the basis of social justice and the principle of equity (Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act). The fact duly confirmed by the court of final appeal that the judgment below did not go beyond the bounds of the principle
(Article 432 of the same Act). For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court: (a) conspiredd and participated in Defendant A’s act of submitting false documents in collusion with the head of Defendant B or fabricated.
It determined that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s G and the affiliated contracting officer had committed deception.
The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing this judgment of the court below is merely an error of the choice of evidence and the value of evidence belonging to the free trial of the court of fact-finding, and the fact-finding based thereon.
In addition, while examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding joint tort liability, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.
2. As to the ground of appeal against Defendant B
A. Fraudulent act refers to any affirmative or passive act that has a good faith and sincerity to be observed by one another in a wide transactional relationship. It is sufficient to say that it is not necessarily related to the important part of a juristic act, and it is reasonable to have the other party enter the other party into a mistake to make a disposal of the property which the perpetrator wishes. Whether a certain act constitutes a deceptive act that causes a mistake of another person, such as transactional situation, the other party’s knowledge, experience, occupation, etc.