beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance, including the claims modified by this court, shall be modified as follows:
Attached Form
List.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for modification and addition as follows.
(A) In full view of the arguments of the Defendant and the evidence submitted by the Defendant, it is reasonable to establish and determine the first instance court’s fact-finding and judgment. On the third part of the first instance judgment, “self-reliance” in the third part of the third part of the first instance judgment, and on the fifth part, “other persons” in the third part of the first instance judgment shall be amended respectively.
Then, the part 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance states that "No document was forged on the ground that there is a difference between Gap's certificate 4 (the reservation contract in this case) and Eul's certificate 11-1 (the confirmation document in this case) and Eul's certificate 21-21 (the confirmation document in this case)," but Eul's E-book 21 was signed on the digital signature tamper used by the government office and there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is a difference between the two documents and the other documents (the document in this case is not clear whether there is a difference between the two documents)."
In the second instance judgment, following the second instance judgment, the Defendants asserted to the effect that “the Defendants cannot be deemed to have concluded a quasi-loan contract with respect to a gift not performed between the Plaintiff and E,” but in light of the content of the instant confirmation, the process of its preparation, and the circumstances to be seen below, it is reasonable to deem that a quasi-loan contract was concluded. Even if the quasi-loan loan contract cannot be deemed to have been concluded, the provisional registration of this case is to secure a monetary claim of KRW 5 billion against E by the Plaintiff.