beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasons why the court of the first instance as to the instant case are stated are as follows: (a) the second 20th 20 of the judgment of the first instance (“2.30 December 30, 2012”; and (b) the term “ June 12, 2013” of the same act as “ June 25, 2013”; and (c) the grounds for the first instance judgment as to the assertion that the Plaintiff is going to the grounds for appeal in the court of the first instance as to the allegation that the Plaintiff is going to the grounds for appeal are identical to the grounds for the second 2nd 3rd 20 of the judgment; and (d) the same shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. As the grounds of appeal, the Plaintiff asserts that, as the managing director of C’s financial affairs, the Defendant, who was the managing director of C, was unaware of the Plaintiff as if the instant selective system was produced even if the instant selective system was not produced, or by deceiving the Plaintiff by violating the duty to notify the fact that the instant selective system was not produced, even if not, it did not so.
B. However, in addition to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court of first instance, namely, ① a facility which is made into dancing according to the place to be installed. The Plaintiff secured a factory site to be installed at around September 2013 (the scheduled date for the completion of the supply contract). ② After that, the Plaintiff and C agreed on the alteration of design, production, and installation schedule for the installation of the instant sorting machine, and confirmed that the performance of the instant sorting machine was above the agreed standard after completion of the construction of the instant sorting machine, but during that process, it appears that the Plaintiff did not raise any objection with respect to the delay in the production or installation of the instant selective machine, ③ the Plaintiff was granted a patent agreement between the Plaintiff and C around December 28, 2012 (exclusive license on June 28, 2012).