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 follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for modification and addition as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence
2. Parts to be corrected and added; and
(a) revise the “Plaintiff” in the second part of the judgment of the first instance to “Plaintiff”;
(b) The Korean precision in the fourth part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be amended to “Korean Precision Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korean Precision”).”
(c) Part IV of the judgment of the court of first instance (2) shall be amended as follows.
The Korean precision notified the Defendant that there was a defect or defect or defect of power and intention from December 2, 2013 to May 2014.
D. In part 4 (B) of the judgment of the first instance court, the Defendant’s assertion that the instant Fin was caused in the course of the Plaintiff’s gambling is insufficient as evidence, and the Defendant’s statement of No. 9 submitted in the trial room is added.
(e) by inserting the following contents in part 4 (b) of the judgment of the first instance.
“The Defendant also raises an objection against the Defendant’s determination of Crerecilty between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in writing within 10 days from the date of receipt of the notice, and in the absence of such objection, the Plaintiff follows the Defendant’s determination. The Defendant’s notice of Crecilty (Evidence A4) reached the Plaintiff on July 17, 2014, and the Plaintiff did not raise an objection to the Defendant within 10 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Therefore, the Defendant’s determination of Crecilty became final and conclusive.
Comprehensively taking account of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5-1 and 2, it can be acknowledged that the defendant's notice of Creat has reached the plaintiff on July 17, 2014.
On the other hand, the entry of Gap evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, 14-1, 2-2.