beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
Examination of the Grounds of Appeal
(1) As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 submitted by an appellant, inasmuch as the authenticity of the disposition document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the contents of the document, unless there is any counter-proof, and shall not dismiss it without reasonable grounds.
However, if an explicit or implied agreement different from the content of the disposal document is acknowledged, facts different from the content of the written agreement can be acknowledged. The interpretation of the author’s legal act can be freely determined by free evaluation within the extent not inconsistent with logical and empirical rules.
(2) The court below held that the CBS Convention (hereinafter “the New Convention”) was based on the premise of acquiring the land for business by means of a private contract, in view of the size of the DBS Complex project, the size of the area for the business, the private business entity’s obligation to contribute to the donation of the private business entity, and the fact that Gyeonggi-do applied for the approval of the supply of the housing site to the development cost by various negotiated contracts with the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, the final return of the application for the approval of the supply of the housing site, and the fact that the project cannot be carried out according to the final return of the application for the approval of the supply of the housing site, etc.
The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing the fact-finding that led to the judgment of the court below is merely an error in the selection of evidence and the judgment on the value of evidence belonging to the free trial of the fact-finding court.
In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, or interpreted the probative value or expression of intent of a disposal document, and Article 14(1)