beta
Text
The judgment below
Among them, the part against Defendant C is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to Busan High Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal on Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”), the court shall determine whether the assertion of facts is true in accordance with logical and empirical rules based on the ideology of social justice and equity by free evaluation of evidence, taking into account the overall purport of pleadings and the result of examination of evidence (Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act). The lower court’s judgment did not exceed the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and thus duly confirmed the fact that the
(Article 432 of the same Act). The lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, determined that Defendant B cannot be deemed as the originator of the “Agreement on Termination and Termination of Construction,” which was June 28, 2010,” and that there was no evidence to recognize otherwise that Defendant B agreed to the same content as the instant agreement with the Plaintiff.
The allegation in the grounds of appeal is the purport of disputing the fact-finding that led to the judgment of the court below, and it is merely an error in the selection of evidence and the judgment on the value of evidence belonging to the free trial of the court of
In addition, even if 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 in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the formation of a contract, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence
The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different from this case, and thus are inappropriate to be invoked in this case.
2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) on the establishment of the authenticity of the instant agreement, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, is the Defendant’s seal in the instant agreement.