beta
Text
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted to the court of first instance shows each evidence newly submitted to this court, it is acknowledged that the facts and judgment of the court of first instance are legitimate.
Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is that “30,00,100 won” of the second sentence of the first instance judgment on the grounds of the first instance judgment is “20,000,000 won,” and the Plaintiff and the Defendant newly judged as to the assertion emphasized or added by this court, and as follows, the reasoning for the first instance judgment is the same as the part of the first instance judgment, except for the rejection or addition of a part of the grounds for the first instance judgment, and thus, they are cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance on the same part, the 3rd to 17th to 3rd to 15th to 4th, among the grounds therefor are as follows.
In light of the overall purport of pleadings and arguments in the statements or videos stated in Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 34, 44, 52, and Eul evidence Nos. 11 and 12, the defendant participated in the overseas study fishing and training exhibition held in Seoul F (hereinafter referred to as "gambling exhibition") during this period from March 23, 2019 as a professor belonging to the Japanese University. The defendant also assisted the work of Eul as an instructor belonging to the Eul University. The defendant and the defendant and the defendant are expected to have engaged in joint research as a researcher and the doctoral degree of study in the same field, and have engaged in joint research at the school conference. The defendant and the defendant were divided into the above Gatel Gtel during the above period into the place where the plaintiff and the defendant completed the exhibition, and the defendant and the defendant were also found to have entered the above Gatel for 209.
However, the above facts and the evidence mentioned above, and this court.