beta
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 acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following items to the Part 8, 2, 11, and 3 of the judgment.
In addition, the defendant B asserts the termination of the contract on the ground of the non-payment.
In addition, Defendant B received the help of the Plaintiff from the head of the AP Tax Office during the tax investigation from December 2001 to March 2002, and in return, made and made the agreement and receipt of the instant club in return, Defendant B asserts that the agreement and receipt of the instant club were null and void pursuant to Article 103 of the Civil Code as an act of anti-social order or null and void by the principle of good faith, good faith, and good faith.
[No. 3] Defendant B asserted that the agreement for the same use of this case was cancelled since it was not actually paid by C, but Defendant C paid the sale price. As seen earlier, Defendant B’s conjunctive defense of cancellation is without merit.
Although the content of the instant club agreement itself cannot be deemed to be contrary to good morals and other social order, it may be deemed that the content of the agreement becomes contrary to social order because it is legally enforced, or the juristic act is contrary to social order conditions or monetary consideration, or that the motive of the juristic act indicated or known to the other party is contrary to social order.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da37251, Sept. 10, 2009; 99Da56833, Feb. 11, 2000). In addition, it is insufficient to recognize that the agreement of this case was provided to A in return for the convenience of tax investigation only with evidence No. 13, and witness AK’s testimony, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Therefore, Defendant B’s defense that the instant club agreement is contrary to the social order, the good faith principle, and the principle of gold speech cannot be accepted.
Ultimately, Defendant B’s defense is all.