beta
Text
1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the assertion emphasized or added by the Defendants in this court, and thus, it shall be accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4
2. The Defendants asserted that, based on the fact-finding and determination by the court of first instance based on the fact-finding and determination by the court of first instance, based on the evidence Nos. 4 through 9 (including the number of pages), which were lawfully adopted and investigated by the court of first instance, was justifiable, and there were no errors as alleged in the grounds for appeal by the Defendants). 2. The Defendants asserted that, in determining the purchase price at a field rate, the Defendants would incur damages if the Defendants deducts all the expenses including the above purchase price from the consignment amount, and thus, there was no loss in the field. 2. The court of first instance measured the weight of the digging, excluding the quality per year, at an average of 5.95km, but the Defendants calculated the weight of the digging, on November 1, 2013 and Nov. 1, 2014, the average weight per year from the Plaintiff at the time of purchasing the digging from the Plaintiff, the total amount of KRW 2.81km to 300 g or 3k per year per year per year per year per year per year per day per day per day per day per day per day, 7000.
However, the entries in Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 8 (including branch numbers) are not sufficient to recognize that the average weight per year of excavation sold by the plaintiff to the defendant around November 201 and November 2014 was 2.81km or 3 km, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
In addition, the calculation of the purchase price based on the rate of gambling which the defendant claims is entrusted to G.