beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The identity of the party to the contract is a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved;
(see, i.e., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da4471, Nov. 29, 2012). In a case where an interpretation of a declaration of intent is at issue between the parties, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the content of the declaration of intent, the motive and background leading up to the declaration of intent, the purpose to be achieved by the said declaration of intent,
(1) In light of the purport of the entire pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence, the court shall freely and without consideration, determine whether a factual assertion is true in accordance with logical and empirical rules based on the ideology of social justice and equity (Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act). The facts duly confirmed by the court below that the court below did not go beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence and that the court of final appeal shall bind the court of final appeal.
(1) On February 2, 200, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that (1) the defendant operating a bonded warehouse is not liable to the defendant as to the portion shipped out of B's instructions on the premise that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff was entrusted with the sale of the above draft, and that (2) B is not responsible to the defendant as to the portion shipped out of B's instructions on the premise that the entrustment was made.
3. The ground of appeal disputing the lower court’s fact-finding is merely an error of the choice of evidence and the determination of the value of evidence belonging to the free trial of the fact-finding court.
In addition, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, there are parts that are not relevant to the lower court’s decision, but that conclusion is above.