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 reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the first instance, except where the defendant added the following additional judgments, even if considering the defendant's supplemental arguments in the appellate court. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The defendant asserts that the defendant's declaration of intention stated in the notarial deed of this case is invalid as a saccinal mark, since the plaintiff requested the plaintiff to return oil brought to the gas station to prepare the notarial deed of this case, and therefore the defendant's declaration of intention stated in the notarial deed of this case was invalid.
The term "medical intention" in the expression of intention, which is not a medical intention, means the idea of the voter who intends to express a specific content, and it does not mean the matter in the genuine mind. Thus, even if the designer did not feel in the genuine mind of the contents of his/her expression, if he/she made his/her expression of intention, it is judged to be the best in the current situation and made the expression of intention, it cannot be deemed as an expression of intention, not a medical intention lacking the intention of internal effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da11458, Apr. 25, 2003). Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant's expression of intention expressed in the Notarial Deed of this case differs from the defendant's expression of intention.
Rather, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant prepared the instant notarial deed by deeming that it was best in the situation at the time for the purpose of receiving oil return from the Plaintiff, etc.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. The decision of the first instance court on the conclusion is justifiable.
The defendant's appeal is dismissed for lack of reason.