Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "H" of the 3rd part of the judgment of the court of first instance as "J"; "the conclusion of the 5th part" as "the conclusion of the 10th part of the 5th part"; "the defendant" as "the plaintiff"; "the fee" of the 11th part as "the fee"; "the fee" of the 13th part of the 13th part as "the fee"; "the damages equivalent thereto" of the 13th part and 14th part as "the compensation for damages caused by the violation of the contribution contract of this case"; "the signature and seal of the 8th part "" as "the signature and seal of the 9th part ""; "the defendant of the 5th part" as "the defendant"; "the plaintiff of the 11th part of the 11th part is added to "the defendant" as "the defendant"; and "the plaintiff is added from the judgment of the court of first instance as it is as follows.
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. Determination as to the grounds for appeal (1) as seen in the above cited part, the first model contract and the contribution contract of this case are deemed to have been lawfully concluded by E on behalf of the defendant within the extent of their power of representation, and thus contrary to this, the statement in the evidence Nos. 14, 15, or part of the witness of K at the trial, and (2) the statement in the evidence No. 16-1, 3, 17, and 18, or the remaining testimony of the above K are insufficient to deem that the contribution contract of this case lost its validity in accordance with the second model contract, and it is not possible to find any other material to reverse the judgment of the above cited part. Accordingly, all of the defendant's arguments in this part related to this issue cannot be accepted.
B. On the premise that the Defendant is liable for damages arising from the breach of the instant contribution contract, the Defendant’s judgment on the conjunctive assertion is based on the premise that the Plaintiff was not at all involved in each model contract from 2011 to 2013.