The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In light of the purport of the entire pleadings and the outcome of the examination of evidence, the court shall render a judgment of fact free of charge in accordance with logical and empirical rules, based on the principle of free evaluation of evidence, by taking into account the social justice and equity, so long as it does not exceed the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, the determination of value of evidence and fact-finding belongs to the discretion

(2) On the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s key claim in this case against the said corporation is indemnity claim arising from the Plaintiff’s payment on behalf of the said corporation on or before November 2010; and (b) as of December 31, 201, the date of the preparation of the present statement of financial position, one year after the date of occurrence; and (c) thus, the construction business management regulations (No. 243 of the Rules of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 243 of August 24, 2012) [Attachment 2] [Attachment 2] of the Construction Business Enterprise Diagnosis Guidelines as non-performing assets stipulated in Article 17(4) of the Construction Business Enterprise Diagnosis Guidelines.

The ground of appeal disputing such judgment of the court below is purporting to dispute the fact-finding of the court below as to the cause and time of the occurrence of the claim in this case. It is merely erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment of the court below as to the selection and value of evidence belonging to the free evaluation of evidence, and it does not err in the misapprehension of the principle of free evaluation of evidence even in light of the aforementioned legal principles

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the instant disposition ordering the suspension of construction business for a period of four months has no error of deviation from or abuse of discretion.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s judgment is an abuse of discretion, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.